• Home
• UK Politics
• World Politics
• Policy
• Media
• Lifestyle
• Sport
• Contributors
• Topics

I Could Forgive an “Error of Judgement” - But This Isn’t One.

It doesn't take a lot to get Declan Harvey shouting at the radio - even when he's on it - but David Cameron's defence got him up and at it.

By Declan Harvey

22 Jul 2011, 08:10

Ed Miliband's performance over the past three weeks has been a well timed display of statesmanship. Who'd have thought a month ago some of his greatest detractors would be transformed into supporters, albeit jaw-clinching supporters. I imagine it will buy him a few more months as leader.

One of Ed's biggest triumphs has been to inject this hacking saga with two solid phrases which have become truly lodged in the public's mind: "the Prime Minister doesn't get it" and "catastrophic error of judgement".

Granted neither catchphrase is Churchillian in its brilliance, but they did enough to get David Cameron on the back foot for most of the past few days. Perhaps that's victory enough for New Old Labour but they haven't delivered the fatal blow that perhaps they could have. And I'd go as far to say they've actually missed the point completely.

Let's get the first tag-line out of the way: to accuse the PM of "not getting it" serves to suggest Mr Miliband does "get it" without actually having to spell out what "it" is. Fair play! It’s a snappy, joe-bloggs-friendly piece of political rhetoric which part of me enjoys and maybe even admires. We move on...

It's the "error of judgement" remark that gets me shouting at the radio. Not only is it inaccurate but it completely underplays the more sinister element of what Messrs Cameron and Osborne did. The problem is one of character.

The foolish hiring of Andy Coulson was in truth a very good judgement call. They needed a media whizz who could bridge the gap between Eton and the East End. Coulson was and still is the ideal choice. He has a turn of phrase and an eye for detail that would dazzle even the reddest lefty. The "nasty party" would (and did) seem a little more "butter wouldn't melt" with his help.

It's the price Mr Cameron seems willing to pay for this input that I find staggering and alarming. To win an election it would seem he's happy to: override the advice of senior Westminster colleagues; ignore the raised eyebrows at Buckingham Palace; forget an admission of paying police for information; overlook a resignation for being editor during phone hacking... I don't think I need a fifth.

Even if Mr Coulson did nothing wrong the circumstances suggest David Cameron, at best, took a gamble and at worst decided he wanted the top job so much he'd shut his eyes to the murkiness and suspicion. Doesn’t that say more about a person’s character than anything else?

Andy Coulson's presence at Downing Street was the result of a Prime-Minister-in-waiting swallowing hard and surrendering to ambition.

If I'm wrong then why did Andy Coulson only ever receive a medium level of security clearance? His predecessor Alastair Campbell had free rein to riffle through the Cabinet’s cabinets. Why not Andy? Perhaps Cameron knew that was a step too far - a step from craftiness to foolishness.

It's not the done thing in Westminster for one's character to be assaulted. ‘Judgement’ is a much more polite target. But it’s not beyond an MP to pull out the big guns when required. In this week’s Home Affairs Select Committee report into Scotland Yard’s hacking investigation failures Andy Hayman’s character was desecrated. The committee put on paper that the former Met Assistant Commissioner is “unprofessional”, “inappropriate”, “complacent” and capable of “deplorable” acts. True? Who knows. A character assassination? Certainly.
So why the kid gloves when dealing with each other in the Commons? Perhaps no one in the chamber can afford for his opponent to make a retaliation of similar strength.

Although convenient at times it’s lazy to confuse failures in ‘judgement’ and ‘character’. One is an error, the other’s a defect.