Post will be created as early as January once the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified. The endorsement of Tony Blair was announced by Baroness Kinnock
Tony Blair won the formal backing of Gordon Brown yesterday as Britain's candidate to become the first "President of Europe".
Downing Street endorsed Baroness (Glenys) Kinnock, the Europe minister, who said in Strasbourg: "The UK Government is supporting Tony Blair's candidature for President of the [European] Council." Asked if the prospect had been discussed with Mr Blair, she said: "It is the Government's position. I am sure they would not do that without asking him." Mr Brown's spokesman said: "What the Prime Minister supports is Tony Blair's candidature for the President of the European Council if Tony Blair decides that that is what he would like to do and as and when such a position exists."
The post would be created, possibly as early as next January, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. The biggest remaining hurdle is a second referendum in Ireland in October, but opinion polls suggest people will vote Yes this time.
Allies of Mr Blair said he was not campaigning actively for the job but would be interested if it involved being a figurehead representing the European Union on the world stage. "He doesn't want to spend his time chairing meetings of EU leaders," one said.
The scope of the new post has not been defined. Brussels insiders warned that Mr Blair could miss out unless he shows he is hungry for it. "He has to really want it and work for it to be successful," one said. Even his critics admit Mr Blair is the most heavyweight of the candidates in the frame. But he faces opposition in some quarters. Some countries do not want Britain to land the post because it is not inside the eurozone and nor is it party to the "open borders" Schengen agreement. Although memories of Mr Blair's role in the Iraq war have faded, it still rankles for some European politicians.
Other potential candidates include Felipe Gonzalez, the veteran former Spanish prime minister. He is said to be favoured by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, who initially championed Mr Blair. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, is thought to be lukewarm about the idea of "President Blair".
William Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, said the former prime minister should be let "nowhere near the job". He said: "The creation of a new EU President could be enormously damaging for Europe. Any holder is likely to try to centralise power for themselves in Brussels and dominate national foreign policies. In the hands of an operator as ambitious as Tony Blair, that is a near certainty."
A spokesman for Mr Blair said: "There is no campaign. As we have said time and again on this, there is nothing to be a candidate for since the job doesn't actually exist."
Denis MacShane, Labour's former Europe minister, said: "Blair cannot avoid having his name being dragged into any list of names for top jobs. Does he really, really want it? Does he know himself?"
One EU official said: "The difficulty is that no one has come up with a proper job description. People say the exact nature of the job will be shaped by whoever is appointed, and whoever is appointed must be a former president or prime minister of a member state."
I would like to send out my sincere condolences to the family of Natalia Estemirova who was found shot dead after being abducted outside her home.The Russian human rights activist was found dead today.
Russia's human rights record tonight came under severe criticism after one of the country's most famous human rights campaigners was abducted from her home in Chechnya and brutally murdered.
Natalia Estemirova was seized by four unknown men this morning as she left for work. Neighbours at her house in Grozny, Chechnya's capital, heard her shout: "I'm being kidnapped."
Her body was found near Gazi-Yurt village, in neighbouring Ingushetia. She had been shot twice in the head and chest, police said, adding that her corpse had been dumped on the main road.
Human rights activists expressed outrage at her murder, reminiscent of the killing of Anna Politkovskaya, the journalist, writer, and bitter Kremlin critic shot dead outside her Moscow apartment in 2006.
Estemirova, 50, was a close friend of Politkovskaya's. The two had collaborated on numerous investigations into human rights abuses in Chechnya. Both were scathing opponents of Ramzan Kadyrov, Chechnya's pro-Kremlin president.
"Natasha was at the forefront of some of the most intense human rights investigations in Chechnya," said Allison Gill, director of Human Rights Watch in Russia. "She was targeted because of her work. I have no doubt her killing was to silence her. One of the most amazing things about Natasha is that she never stopped doing what she was doing. She never checked herself. She was highly public in her calls for accountability.
"I think the human rights situation is in crisis in Russia," she added. "We have a deathly silence from the authorities whenever activists, lawyers or journalists are murdered. Not a single person is brought to justice."
Estemirova was the Chechnya-based head of Memorial, Russia's oldest human rights group.
Operating out of a small office in Grozny, she doggedly pursued stories of human rights abuses in the face of official intimidation and hostility.
She recently collaborated on two damning reports into punitive house burnings and extra-judicial killings in Chechnya, allegedly carried out by Kadyrov's forces. The reports documented how on 2 July his troops allegedly shot 20-year-old Madina Yunusova and her husband near Grozny.
Chechen officials claimed her husband had been involved in a plot to kill Kadyrov. Yunosova died three days later in hospital under mysterious circumstances.
"Natasha was always involved in the most sensitive cases. She knew what she was doing. She knew the risks," Shamil Tangiyev, a former Memorial colleague said. "She was extremely brave. It was in her nature to be an activist."
Estemirova made no attempt to hide her work. Her office near the newly renamed Putin avenue was well known.
The timing of her murder follows Barack Obama's first visit to Moscow last week as US president. Obama met with Russian human rights activists and set out the US's commitment to "universal values".
The Kremlin responded with hardline pronouncements, with the president, Dmitry Medvedev, visiting the breakaway Georgian republic of South Ossetia on Monday. The trip appeared to be a direct rebuff to Obama who had said that both Georgia and Ukraine should be free to choose their own leaders.
Estemirova, who leaves a 15-year-old daughter, was probably the best-known human rights activist in Russia's provinces.
Earlier this year she attended the trial in Moscow of four people – two of them Chechens – accused of involvement in Politkovskaya's murder.
Speaking to the Guardian in February, Estemirova called the Politkovskaya trial a "farce".
Kadyrov, a close ally of Russia's prime minister, Vladimir Putin, has denied accusations he was involved in Politkovskaya's killing, remarking: "I don't kill women."
Recently the Kremlin has given Kadyrov unprecedented powers for counter-terrorist operations in Ingushetia, amid a worsening Islamist insurgency across the entire North Caucasus.
Estemirova was also a close colleague of Stanislav Markelov, the human rights lawyer murdered in Moscow in January. A masked assassin shot Markelov in the back of the head, not far from the Kremlin, along with Anastasia Baburova, a journalist with the Novaya Gazeta newspaper.
Tonight human rights activists urged the west to place human rights at the centre of any dialogue with Russia. Gill said: "We can't talk about trade or energy without mentioning the rule of law."
John Healey today became the most senior government minister to criticise the secret Tory plans for widescale cuts in social housing.
3,500 homes are set to be demolished by Tory-run Hammersmith and Fulham council under leader Stephen Greenhalgh’s plans, on estates deemed “not decent”. The documents, which came to light last week, also suggest limiting social housing to the old, infirm and disabled, and gerrymandering others in need of housing to outside the borough.
Healey, speaking at a Fabian Society event on narrowing the gap between public and private housing, described the policy as being at “the cutting edge of Tory thinking.” He also highlighted the links between David Cameron and Mr Greenhalgh, who heads up the Tory leader’s Conservative Councils Innovation Unit.
Healey said: “Under these proposals ‘need’ will be based on those earning £80,000 and above; they will end up excluding the poor."
He continued: “One billion pounds will be cut from the housing budget under the Tories, with a further ten per cent cut each year. Simply arguing for individual responsibility and a greater role for charities won’t work. We need an active government – any other prescription lacks credibility.”
The agenda of last night’s Cabinet revealed £100,000 was being requested, “to appoint professional property advisors and procure legal advice.” A further £200,000 would be used for “a transport impact study in assessing the development prospects for the Earl's Court regeneration project.” (Paper 12, Paragraph 5.2). The money comes from a £900,000 pot of unallocated funds ring-fenced for consultants.
Local MP, Andrew Slaughter, said: “This is money they’ve sat on to pay lawyers and transport consultants for a scheme to demolish estates. It’s like nicking your wallet and hitting you over the head with it. Where are these people going to live?”
BNP supporters face threats of legal action from the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) for breaching the Race Relations Act.
A CSC report published earlier this week detailed offensive material on BNP-supporting YouTube accounts, blogs and internet forums run by members and self-professed supporters of the BNP.
The sites host and link to material that displays support for violence, admiration of the Third Reich, extreme racist views and denial of the holocaust.
The report is a response to BNP calls to be treated as a mainstream political party.
The report's authors state that "it would be unacceptable" if any of the three main parties failed, as the BNP have, to distance themselves from and denounce similar views if they were posted on sites run by their supporters.
As a by-product of the report, new evidence was uncovered that the Race Relations Act had been breached, but the CSC has said that, because many of the bloggers remain anonymous, it may be difficult for them to bring legal action without police involvement.
CSC director Douglas Murray said: "This report shows members and supporters of the BNP continue to hold and express the vilest racist, anti-semitic, homophobic and sexist views - shocking even to those of us who thought our opinion of the BNP could never be lower."
As BNPMEPs Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons entered the European Parliament today in Strasbourg, anti-racist campaign group Hope Not Hate delivered a "not in our name" petition to the Parliament with thousands of signatures from members of the British public stating that the BNP does not represent their views.
Iran Solidarity has been formed to mobilise support and stand with the people of Iran against the Islamic regime of Iran. Iran Solidarity
In June 2009 millions of people came out on to the streets of Iran for freedom and an end to the Islamic regime. Whilst the June 12 election was a pretext for the protests - elections have never been free or fair in Iran – it has opened the space for people to come to the fore with their own slogans.
The world has been encouraged by the protesters’ bravery and humane demands and horrified by the all-out repression they have faced. It has seen a different image of Iran - one of a population that refuses to kneel even after 30 years of living under Islamic rule.
The dawn that this movement heralds for us across the world is a promising one – one that aims to bring Iran into the 21st century and break the back of the political Islamic movement internationally.
This is a movement that must be supported.
Declaration:
We, the undersigned, join Iran Solidarity to declare our unequivocal solidarity with the people of Iran. We hear their call for freedom and stand with them in opposition to the Islamic regime of Iran. We demand:
The immediate release of all those imprisoned during the recent protests and all political prisoners
The arrest and public prosecution of those responsible for the current killings and atrocities and for those committed during the last 30 years
Proper medical attention to those wounded during the protests and ill-treated and tortured in prison. Information on the status of the dead, wounded and arrested to their families. The wounded and arrested must have access to their family members. Family members must be allowed to bury their loved ones where they choose.
A ban on torture
The abolition of the death penalty and stoning
Unconditional freedom of expression, thought, organisation, demonstration, and strike
Unconditional freedom of the press and media and an end to restrictions on communications, including the internet, telephone, mobiles and satellite television programmes
An end to compulsory veiling and gender apartheid
The abolition of discriminatory laws against women and the establishment of complete equality between men and women
Moreover, we call on all governments and international institutions to isolate the Islamic Republic of Iran and break all diplomatic ties with it. We are opposed to military intervention and economic sanctions because of their adverse affects on people’s lives.
The people of Iran have spoken; we stand with them.
Guardian 'crowd-sourcing' experiment also reveals Ribble Valley MP Nigel Evans claimed for four digital cameras in space of 18 months
A Tory MP charged the taxpayer £375 a month for four years for his mobile phone bills and claimed for four digital cameras in just 18 months, it has been revealed.
The expenses claims by Nigel Evans, the MP for RibbleValley, in Lancashire, came to light as a result of the Guardian's unique "crowd-sourcing" experiment, which asked readers to help journalists trawl through the hundreds of thousands of pages of censored documents released by the Commons last month.
The cameras bought by Evans between May 2006 and November 2007 cost between £199 and £387, with the prices sometimes including memory cards and, in one instance, a camera case.
His mobile phone bills, with Vodafone and O2, came to an average of £404 a month in 2004-05, £389 in 2005-06, £418 in 2006-07 and £289 in 2007-08.
The average figure over four years was £375. Evans's highest monthly bill, for £686.34, was from Vodafone in June 2006.
Telephone costs are allowed under the rules set out in the Green Book, which governs MPs' expenses, while cameras could conceivably come under "purchase of hardware and software".
But claims are only allowed for "expenditure that it was necessary for a member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties".
Asked why his mobile bills were so high, Evans said it was "due to the fact of roaming [costs] when abroad".
"I still keep in touch with constituents and journalists, so when they phone me I still pick up a hefty chunk of the charges," he explained.
He pointed out that roaming charges were "coming down or being shelved" by many telephone companies, and added: "I will be turning my phone off when abroad and getting my staff to text me any calls I must make.
"I will prioritise them more effectively, hence lower charges."
Of the four cameras, the Conservative MP said: "We are currently using two in the office here ... and one broke, and one was stolen at some stage ... so we are currently operating the two.
"I have bought a video camera at my own expense at the tail end of last year [and] I will use it as a digital camera if necessary."
Guardian reader Tony Hacking brought Evans's expenses to the paper's attention. Evans is his MP.
He said he had compared his accounts with those of Jack Straw, a neighbouring MP, and found that while Straw's appeared to be "straightforward and businesslike", Evans's "seemed more like indulging an interest in electronic gadgets".
Hacking said: "I have worked in business where expenses were fairly but scrupulously expected to be fully explained.
"I have also worked at a senior level in a high school where auditors expected and checked to ensure that I could account for every laptop, mouse and keyboard.
"The governors of the school knew how I was spending every pound of the £2.5m budget."
He said he did not believe Evans's expenses were in the same league as those of some MPs, "but they do look offhand and casual in a way that, if I had the same approach, there would have been serious questions raised about my positions in business and education".
He added: "I have certainly known of headteachers who have been dismissed for 'financial irregularities' of the kind which some MPs have dismissed as 'within the rules'."
Hacking said he was angry that MPs had "muddied the water" since the Telegraph first obtained an unedited disk of expenses details and began publishing revelations in May.
Parliamentarians, he said, had "prevaricated so that the issue is still unresolved and things will drift back to the usual".
"Perhaps MPs should show the same professionalism as teachers and work throughout the recess to develop a framework of professional standards for politicians," he added.
The Guardian's exercise has yielded hundreds of pieces of information from readers, which reporters will continue to examine.
Reader Ian Fairbarn pointed out that Oliver Heald, the Conservative MP for Hertfordshire North East, had on two occasions double claimed for the same month's £250 worth of petty cash.
In both September and October 2007, Heald claimed for September's £250, while in both November and December 2006 he claimed for November's £250.
The MP said the double claims were due to "administrative errors where months were inadvertently mismarked", adding: "I did not claim for other months in each year, so the annual totals did not exceed the maximum."
Without commenting on the individual case, a spokesman for the Commons Department of Resources said this behaviour would probably fall within the rules.
Hammersmith & Fulham Council has recently announced plans to demolish 3,500 homes on estates they have declared “not decent neighbourhoods”. The full story in Evening Standard's article "Plot to rid council estates of poor".
Why?
Secret documents I have just recovered through an FoI request reveal that the Conservative Leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council, Stephen Greenhalgh, told senior Conservative Party officials that council estates are “ghettoes”. The people who live there “add to the welfare cost of Government” and “have fallen into a cycle of unemployment and dependency”. “We (the taxpayer)” get “no return”. “What is needed” is “a solution to concentrations of deprivation”.
As part of the process exposed by the documents, the Council gathered together a secret group of people to discuss this. Someone asked: “What is a ‘Poor person’?” Someone else said Fulham Court “is not a place, it is a barrack for the poor”. Yet another suggested the 2,000 strong WhiteCity estate was “an ideal place to develop and deliver a ‘master plan’”. And someone else said it was “hard to get rid of people”.
Participants acknowledged “’Porteresque’ accusations of gerrymandering or social engineering needed to be faced head on”. Hence: “funding needed for political problem of management”, and “regeneration should not be stymied by a very few who object on spurious or ideological grounds”.
The “message” is “ownership empowers”, and “the Sacred Cows need to be shot!”. “We need to create mixed communities in concentrated areas of deprivation.”
Now, the Council has developed its “bulldozer argument” for its planning strategy - branding seven council estates containing 3,500 homes “not decent neighbourhoods”.
Using the language of social cleansing, and with no respect for age, vulnerability or human rights, the Tories propose to destroy communities on estates in Shepherds Bush, Hammersmith and Fulham. The sites will be used mainly for commercial development like hotels and conference centres. There would be a reduction of social rented homes by up to a third, and new housing for sale would be unaffordable to local residents.
In the meantime, all but health and safety repairs to the properties would cease and flats would be let on a temporary basis. Whole neighbourhoods are now blighted, with freeholders and leaseholders unable to sell, even though demolition could be years away. For the remaining social tenants in the borough – almost 40% of the population – there would be no prospect of re-housing for 20 years as the displaced residents took the few homes that become available.
But the targeted estates are places that all types of people wish to live – from pensioners and young families to first-time buyers and professionals. Many millions of pounds of public money have been spent on them under the Decent Homes programme. There is no need to destroy these communities. Residents are naturally furious at the proposals and don’t want to be forced into smaller homes at higher rents.
This is social engineering on a grand scale, and it is being recommended to the Conservative Party hierarchy as the way forward in housing: no security, high rents, no duty to house the homeless, not even right to buy.
The secret Council documents I have obtained suggest the Council’s policy to destroy communities they brand “not decent” may be unlawful, as well as immoral. Council officers are writing Tory party policy using council taxpayers money. But, far worse, poor and vulnerable people in my constituency are being used as guinea pigs in a dishonest and destructive socio-political experiment.
Diplomat says developing nations 'will commit once they have certainty that developed countries are committing themselves'
Developing nations are prepared to make concessions on climate change targets if the G8 fulfils its side of the bargain in the run-up to the climate change talks in Copenhagen in December, a key negotiator told the Guardian today.
The developing countries want the G8 nations to sign up to a 40% cut by 2020, but that figure is off the radar of the EU and, given the unwieldy legislation laboriously passing through the senate, not a possibility for the US.
In important forward steps this week, the G8 agreed to cut its emissions by 80% by 2050 and said worldwide emissions should fall 50% by the same date.
However, the value of this pledge has been reduced by the lack of an agreed start date from which the emission cuts should be measured, making it a distant promise.
Luis Alfonso de Alba, the lead co-ordinator on climate change for the developing countries at the G8, told the Guardian that their call for a 25-40%cut in developed nations' emissions by 2020 was based on what UN climate change scientists had recommended.
The Mexican diplomat gave some ground, saying: "It does not have to be a specific target of 40%.
"That is what we hope to achieve, but this is a process of negotiation."
He said a G8 commitment to a 2020 target was "fundamental", adding: "It is logical that developing countries will commit once they have certainty that developed countries are commiting themselves.
"We need to see the mid-term targets go much higher, and we want to see all the developed countries, including the US, move at the same pace.
"We still need to see numbers. We respect the internal debate in the US, but it is important for the US to understand that this is a global issue and a multilateral negotiation."
He said developing nations could not "just sit and wait to see what the internal debate in the US resolves". He insisted the meeting chaired by Barack Obama under the aegis of the Major Economies Forum this week had made progress in accepting common responsibility for the crisis and for the need for carbon emissions to peak.
"Climate change is no longer seen as a north-south issue," he said. "It is no longer a donor recipient relationship.
"The most important message is that assuming individual responsibilities to fight climate change can start immediately, and by doing it immediately it will be easier to reach an ambitious agreement at Copenhagen."
De Alba said Mexico had already come up with its own carbon reduction programme, and he expected other developing nations to do the same over the coming months.
It was acknowledged at the summit that science dictates world temperatures must not rise more than 2C degrees above pre-industrial levels.
The negotiators hope this acknowledgement will drive the coming negotiations in the run-up to Copenhagen.
The talks include three UN sponsored meetings in Bonn, Bangkok and Barcelona as well as another meeting of the G20 in September.
As speculation has pushed up the prices of staple foodstuffs the number of global hungry has topped one billion G8 leaders have vowed to provide £12.4 billion to the developing world over the next three years to boost food production.
The investment, which is £3.1bn more than had been expected, will fund a three-year initiative to help poor countries modernise their own agriculture.
Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, the host of the G8 meeting in L'Aquila, reported that the leaders decided to raise the initial goal from £9.3bn following talks with African leaders.
The initiative calls for helping the private agricultural sector and small farmers, particularly around harvest time.
In a joint statement, the G8 and African states said that the money would be dedicated to a "co-ordinated, comprehensive strategy focused on sustainable agriculture development, while keeping a strong commitment to ensure adequate emergency food aid assistance."
There are around 500 million small-holder farmers in the world and they produce up to 80 per cent of the food that feeds the world's population.
Angola welcomed the new commitment, saying that it was a "very significant step." Angola's ambassador to Italy Manuel Pedro Pacavira said: "Rebuilding the infrastructure and constructing new infrastructure in Africa will create wealth that will contribute to reducing poverty." And UN Food and Agriculture Organisation chief Jacques Diouf hailed what he described as a "total shift" in rich states approach to tackling world hunger.
"You solve the problem of hunger by giving the necessary tools to farmers who are in these poor countries so they can produce food," Mr Diouf noted.
But anti-poverty groups said that the funding was insufficient and pointed out that rich countries have a long history of failing to make good on development pledges. Oliver Buston, the European director of anti-poverty group ONE, agreed that "the best way to tackle poverty is through growth of the agricultural sector."
But he said that Africa alone requires an additional £15.4bn over the next three years to ensure a basic level of food security.
Food security has jumped to the fore of the political agenda since high prices sparked deadly riots in underdeveloped countries last year.
Prices have receded from mid-2008 highs but a recent estimate by the Food and Agriculture Organisation said that the number of hungry people this year was a record one billion.
I would like to place on the record that coming from Ethic Chinese background myself were I still have families who were born & bread Xinjiang, Hong Kong, UK, Russia, Canada, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Caribbean we find it highly insulting that the Communist Party has the cheek not to remember or forget agbout the incident of The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 culminating in the Tiananmen Square massacre (referred to in China as the June Fourth Incident, ostensibly to avoid confusion with two prior Tiananmen Square protests) were a series of demonstrations in and near Tiananmen Square in Beijing in the People's Republic of China (PRC) beginning on 14 April. Led mainly by students and intellectuals, the protests occurred in a year that saw the collapse of a number of communist governments around the world.
Yet Communist officials in Xinjiang have declared that calm has been restored to riot-torn Urumqi following the deployment of thousands of troops.
President HuJintao abruptly left the G8 summit in Italy on Wednesday and returned home to oversee efforts to prevent more unrest in the city, where inter-ethnic bloodletting claimed the lives of 156 people on Sunday.
Urumqi Communist Party secretary Li Zhi told a televised news conference that many people had been arrested, including students.
"To those who committed crimes with cruel means, we will execute them," Mr Li declared, adding that government forces would crack down on any security risk.
China's top police officer also vowed that there would be no leniency for those who took part in the violence in Urumqi.
Public Security Minister MengJiangzhu said that "key rioters should be punished with the utmost severity."
In some areas of the city, residents have formed barricades with furniture and debris to stop a repeat of the clashes between Uighur citizens and Han Chinese.
One man, who would give only his surname Wang, said: "The government told us today not to get involved in any kind of violence.
"They've been broadcasting this on the radio and they even drove through neighbourhoods with speakers telling people not to carry weapons."
Chinese authorities in Xinjiang have blocked the internet, including social-networking sites such as Facebook, and limited access to texting services on mobile phones.
If Tory communications director Andy Coulson knew about the systemic illegal activity which took place by his staff when he was editor of the News of the World, he is surely finished in politics and public life.
The Guardian report uncovers enormous and systemic illegal activity by reporters on the Sun and the News of the World newspapers, to hack into an estimated two or three thousand mobile phones. When Royal reporter Clive Goodman was jailed, the newspaper claimed he was the only reporter involved. That position is untenable, despite Coulson's statement last night.
Former Sunday Times editor Andrew Neil, speaking on Newsnight, was incredulous at the idea that Coulson could have been unaware of an operation on that scale, or could have been oblivious to how his reporters got their stories.
And yet David Cameron is "relaxed" about the story about the Tory party director of communications. This is not a good thing to be relaxed about.
Yet it is of a piece with Cameron's approach to the expenses crisis.
Cameron has been very keen to project the impression that he has been exceptionally tough and decisive over MPs' expenses - particularly stressing that some in his own party feel bruised. (And no doubt the knights of the shires have their shop stewards too).
There is a large element of mythology in this - most disgruntlement is really about the political expediency of the Cameron approach.
What Cameron has done is to loudly take on and dismiss the expendable - allowing him to protect allies closely.
So George Osborne is thought safe by his leader, though, as John Rentoul has pointed out, there is little relevant difference with the cases of Hazel Blears or Kittty Ussher, except the scale of Osborne's profits.
Meanwhile, Cameron wrote a warm personal endorsement letter to Bill Cash, in another interesting sign that he is working hard to maintain good relations with Euroscpetics, Cameron wrote, so that the veteran Eurosceptic could go into his constituency reselection with a clear exoneration from the party leader. (It is difficult to see that Labour MP Ian Gibson was more culpable than Cash (though many feel Gibson may have been particularly harshly treated).
Keeping Coulson may prove too difficult, But the attempt to do suggests that the only ethic that matters is one of convenience - and that different rules apply to the inner circle. It is also equally important to realise that this is not just, or primarily, a story about Andy Coulson, though that is a natural initial point of focus for political (as opposed to media) reporting and scrutiny.
Andy Coulson's problem is that few if any media experts believe the claim that he could not have known about this type of operation is in any way credible, if he was doing his job. However, the political impact for the Conservatives could easily be contained. David Cameron always took a (calculated) gamble in appointing Coulson, given the circumstances of his resignation as editor of the News of the World when his reporter was jailed in the Royal bugging scandal, particularly if he took on trust the claim of no involvement or knowledge of a one-off incident.
The Conservatives would face only temporary embarrassment if there was swift action in the next couple of days. If, on the other hand, there is an attempt to manage the story and to see which way the wind is blowing, then that would appear to many people to be condoning a rogue culture of self-granted impunity to the law, and to be taking an entirely relativist view of professional ethics, so that there are different rules for your friends.
At that point, Cameron's own character and judgement would be seriously in question. I feel he is likely to avoid this, despite his initial response, but we will have to wait and see.
Equally important is to understand that the story appears to be a much bigger one than the political role of the Conservative Party's head of communications and the most senior aide to the main who would be our next Prime Minister.
News International have a much wider series of questions about who knew what when. The role of the recently promoted Rebekah Wade will be one focus of scrutiny. The instinct is to contain the story and to say as little as possible. This may prove untenable.
There will be rightly be scrutiny of how parts of the News International group cover the story - in particular that The Times and Sky News demonstrate journalistic integrity and credibility in following up the story just as they would if it were not about their parent company. And it remains to be seen whether the practices and culture of other news organisations suggest any wider pattern. The media needs to demonstrate that it has the appetite to follow through on these issues - as The Guardian has done - otherwise it becomes the one source of power not effectively scrutinised in an age of increased transparency and accountability.
There are also questions to be asked about the role of the police and prosecution services, and about the lamentable failure of the current arrangements for press oversight by the Press Complaints Commission, given that this proved no barrier to the systemic flouting not just of the PCC self-imposed code but of the wider criminal law.
It will be interesting to see if the centre-right and right-wing blogosphere respond. At the time of the Damian Green arrest I wrote a post on liberal principles and partisan allegiances suggesting that:
"So let me propose a credibility test for such issues: do we take a similar view about the principles involved, regardless of whether a member of their own party or another party is involved?"
To a large extent, liberal and left bloggers did achieve that over the Damian Green affair, and in being very clear in their criticisms of Derek Draper and Damian McBride. Indeed, many of us felt that it was necessary to be tougher when it was our own side being damaged by such shenanigans. So let us see if the right also responds just as they would were a senior aide to Brown or Clegg in charge of and responsibile for those conducting illegal activities in this way, or if the approach is rather to attempt to minimise the issue, or even defend the indefensible.
There has been a good deal of discussion about strengthening the role and relevance of Parliament. A Select Committee investigation with public hearings could prove an important way to ensure that the broader questions of law and ethics are not obscured by some important questions about leading political and media personalities.
