大象传媒

Splitting the Home Office is, if you believe John Reid, driven by a desire to focus better on counter terrorism.

If you believe the opposition, it is driven by the home secretary's desperation to shed the bits of a department which he dubbed as "not fit for purpose".

Remember though that this idea is far from new. For decades many in politics, particularly on the liberal left of politics, have argued that the minister in charge of administering justice should not be the same person as the minister for locking people up. That's the case in many European countries. The argument is that the prison and probation services are always ignored and under-resourced by home secretaries, who care much more about the police, and fending off charges that they are too soft.

Indeed, more than once in recent years, Tony Blair has made plans to do what he's done today. When the PM hatched the idea of replacing his old boss Lord Irvine with (his old flatmate) Lord Falconer as Lord Chancellor, the original idea was for him to run a Ministry of Justice. Then home secretary David Blunkett and, I believe, Lord Irvine himself fought the idea and won.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A final postscript to my exchanges with Guido. He has now for and retracted his claim on Newsnight's post film discussion (which you can watch here) last night that I was the source for his "story" on Downing Street having a second Lotus Notes software system.

For the record, if I have stories I broadcast them and don't give them to bloggers. If I ever had thoughts of doing anything else they were removed by Guido's performance last night which demonstrated an utterly cavalier attitude to facts.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

That'll teach me. I agreed to be interviewed for a film which will be shown on Newsnight tonight made by the man behind the . I've just watched it on the web - .

Plenty of political junkies like me do read and enjoy Guido's blog despite the fact that he spends much of his time telling his readers how spineless we in the mainstream media are. That's the theme of his film tonight. His central claim is that broadcasters need access to politicians so we pull our punches.

Attempting to engage with him in a grown up way I told "Guido" the truth. Namely, that in order for specialist journalists (whether health or legal or political reporters) to know their subject inside out they have to build working relationships with those they report on. Having worked at Panorama for some years, I know that it is sometimes easier for someone coming from outside to make the big "mother of a blow out" investigation without fear of burning their contacts. I went on to argue that this does not stop me asking the big and tough questions when they need asking.

Silly me. "Guido" uses my interview to argue that I don't "need to be so craven" and that "I should worry less about my relationship with politicians and more about my relations with viewers".

So what's my answer to him? Grow up. It the job of broadcasters to report politics in the round. Sometimes that means confronting, challenging and probing politicians. At other it involves reporting, explaining and bringing to life what politicians are trying to do for those who elect them. There will always - thank god - be a role for partisan, campaigning or satirical reporting of politics elsewhere. However, it will almost always build on or react to what's on the mainstream media. For example, if they want to comment on what Gordon Brown's planning to do as prime minister they'll rely on someone who can talk to him and those around him to find out.

Different folks... different strokes. I'll keep reading Guido and, if he's honest, he'll admit he watches us obsessively and feeds off what we do.

PS: Much more stimulating is a lecture by Charles Clarke on New Labour and the Media, which reflects his frustration that his efforts to kick start a debate about what Labour should do in the future is seen entirely through the prism of whether he, or anyone else, will challenge Gordon Brown for the leadership.

You will be able to read his text here once he's stood on his feet at 7:30 pm.

UPDATE: Click (word document) to download the text of the speech.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I am in a background briefing by what I am obliged to call "a senior military officer".

He has called Iran's seizure of seven Royal Marines and eight sailors "unprovoked, unexpected, unprecedented and improper". I have just asked whether the rules of engagement for our forces in Iraq prevented them from fighting back. The answer was "No".

Our forces were carrying out a routine inspection. They were approached at high speed by two heavily-armed Iranian boats, although they initially adopted a 'friendly posture'. It was only at the last minute that the Iranians, armed with RPGs and heavy machine guns, became aggressive. By then, we were told, there was a distance of only a few feet between the British and Iranian boats - a distance too short, we were told, for an 'arc of fire'.

The senior military officer insisted that the commander of forces in the region was satisfied with the rules of engagement.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

There are times when news is so long coming and change is so glacial that we are too bored to look when something truly momentous happens. Today risks being such a day.

Ian Paisley is meeting Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness. "So what?" you yawn at the prospect of more talks about talks after another deadline in Northern Ireland's "peace process" passes without consequence. Wrong. Dead wrong.

The leaders of once-murderous Republicanism and the man who for decades has bellowed "Ulster says No" have never had a meeting. I choose my words carefully. They've been in the same room, they've passed in corridors and, as I shall relate, they bumped into each other in a lift but they have never ever agreed to meet. That decision was Paisley's.

I recall as a young TV producer accompanying Paisley in a lift in 大象传媒 Belfast in 1994. All were nervy. We were escorting him to take part in what - if memory serves me right - was the first ever debate involving both Sinn Fein and the DUP. Actually, though both sides appeared in the same studio they weren't ever there at the same time. What's more, they were kept on different floors of the building to avoid meeting. The lift was the weak link in this carefully worked out plan. On this night it stopped, the doors opened and Paisley and I were confronted by a grinning Adams. "Hello Ian" he beamed. Paisley glowered back as an aide jabbed the button to close the doors. Naturally, they took an age to close. The smile on Adams's face increased.

Earlier that day I had greeted Martin McGuiness as he arrived at the studio. His car looked unusual - too low to the ground. I soon discovered why. This was known as his "two ton Cortina" - the weight coming from its armour plating. When the doors opened heavy metal chain clanked to the ground. The chain was welded to each of the back doors and a heavy lock held them closed - this, it was soon explained to me, was to prevent hijacking or kidnapping.

With all that in mind I laughed out loud this morning when I heard Adams say that he wanted a meeting with Paisley so that together they could stop Westminster from imposing water metering - that's right water metering - on the people of Northern Ireland.

What a meeting. What a day.

PS I was relating the tale of the lift at this morning's Downing Street press briefing when the PM's Official Spokesman Tom Kelly told me that he was on the other side of the lift doors with Adams. At the time he was 大象传媒 Northern Ireland's news editor. He's pretty cautious after seeing too many moments of optimism come and go - remember that thousands of people died in this conflict - but today he could scarcely contain his excitement.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The morning after the night before how does look? Some talk of a tax cut, others of a tax con. Yesterday Gordon Brown was the political showman, taunting the Tories that his tax cut was bigger than theirs. Today he turned himself into the softly-spoken Chancellor committed to tax reform and finding a little bit of money when the national budget was tight to help families and pensioners.

Shorn of the theatre, the rabbits out of hats and the political positioning it is fair to say that this was a significant reforming budget. Cutting tax rates in the way that Gordon Brown has is a reform that the Tories have called for and would have wanted to do themselves.

So why such a mixed reception and why do so many appear to believe that it's a con (if, that is, the emails, comments and calls to the 大象传媒 are representative)? It's down - once again - to the way he chose to present it. And it's because he's got form. Brown almost mumbled his announcement that he was going to remove the 10p starting rate so few realised that he'd announced, in effect, an 拢8.5bn pound tax rise. So some who cheered his 拢9bn tax cut felt deflated when they learnt what had really happened.

Faced by allegations that what "the Gord giveth, the Gord taketh away," the Chancellor's felt the need to point out that he did spend 拢2.5bn pounds on higher tax credits for families and taking some pensioners out of tax. Paid for, mind you, by higher green and business taxes.

The key to Budgets though is what in them proves to be lasting. Gordon Brown's calculations were almost entirely political and almost entirely about stopping David Cameron in his tracks. When the Tories talk of tax cuts, he'll say "I've delivered the lowest income tax rate in 75 years". When they talk of hiking green taxes to pay for personal tax cuts, he'll say "I've done it". When they talk of family tax cuts, he'll say "I've done that too but without discriminating against unmarried people or those abandoned by their partners". When they talk of controlling spending, he'll say "I'm doing it".

Team Cameron's reply is that that's all fine. Far from being their winning card, the economy's proved to be a dud for the Tories in recent elections because they've looked like a dangerously risky option. If their spending plans are the same as Brown's and their tax plans only different at the margins, perhaps people will plump for shiny, new likeable Dave as against grumpy old Gordon.

Ah no, thinks Gordon Brown. His calculation is that his budget will make the Tory right more twitchy for bigger and bolder tax cuts; will narrow the George Osbourne's options for smaller, targeted tax cuts and leave them facing the need to promise to hike up green taxes in a way which will prove to be mightily unpopular.

Who's right? Wish I knew.

PS: Talking of grumpy Gordon wasn't it fascinating, if, at times, slightly excruciating listening to to John Humphrys ask him again and again if he was liked (hear the interview by clicking here). You sensed his awkwardness. You sensed him shrink physically at the need to engage with such questions. David Cameron and Tony Blair are showmen who are comfortable talking about themselves. Brown hates it. And can't quite bring himself to say "go hang, it doesn't matter if people like me or not".

Someone once told Margaret Thatcher that while research showed that the public didn't like her, it didn't matter, because it showed clearly that, most importantly, they did respect her. You know what? She never spoke to that person again.

PPS : The Tories have just gone personal.

The Shadow Chancellor George Osborne launched a scathing attack on Gordon Brown's style of leadership following the Budget. "Look no further than yesterday's Budget... stealthy, sneaky unable to tell the truth - he's not the man who can restore public trust in government because he's the reason people don't believe a word they say any more."

And David Cameron who normally steers clear of these things has joined in by saying: "I think Gordon Brown's problem is that he finds it hard to be straight with people. If he had stood up and said 'Money is tight so I'm going to simplify the tax system but cannot afford to cut taxes', that would have been one thing. But he did not. Instead he pulled an elaborate con trick. People will ask 'Can I trust this man as my prime minister?' and I think they will say 'No, we can't'."

Evidence that they're frit (to use the word Mrs T once used) and lack a policy critique of Budget tax measures they say they'll vote for? Or low political cunning? You decide.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Hey presto! With the last announcement in the last minute of his last Budget speech Gordon Brown has sought to re-write the history of the Brown decade at the Treasury and to wrong-foot the Tories for the next decade.

This chancellor's been called many things - some good, some bad - but rarely has anyone called him a tax cutter or a tax reformer.

His hope is that today's speech will change that. No chance, say his enemies pointing out that what "the Gord giveth the Gord taketh away". And it's true that he had no money to spend today.

Had it not been for these tax changes we would have been focussing on the pain caused by the tightest public spending figures for more than a decade.

Instead Gordon Brown delivered a Budget that reminded me of the great pre-election tax cutting Budgets of old. A leadership election looms. Then, who knows, could he be tempted for an early dash to the polls?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I'm feeling positively nostalgic. Today felt like one of those pre-election budgets in the Tory years where tax cuts were announced with a flourish. There is, though, no overall giveaway. This budget is revenue neutral. It cuts personal tax by around 2 and a half billion pounds - equivalent to about 1p off the basic rate of income tax - paid for by green taxes and tax avoidance measures.

And yet, the chancellor has done something that produced huge roars on the Labour benches and awkward gasps on the Tory benches. A headline cut in income tax (which the Tories have long dreamed of making) and a headline cut in business taxation.

Which election is Gordon Brown waiting for? The Tory leader joked that it was the leadership election.

This is the budget of a Chancellor with his eye firmly on moving to Number Ten. He felt under pressure to be seen to be heading off the challenges from David Cameron and, as a result, from the Blairite wing of the Labour Party.

Just one question - will it work?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

...we have the answer. Scrapping the 10p rate saves him 8.6 billion whilst cutting the basic rate costs 9.6 billion. Net cost around a billion pounds. How's that paid for - by scrapping empty property relief.

Clever hey?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

And - hey presto - there's the rabbit out of the hat.

A 2p cut in income tax. Plus three billion more for families and pensioners.

The issue, of course, is how it's being paid for, as Gordon says there's no cut in taxation as a whole. My colleague Evan Davis is next to me checking the Red Book now to find out the answer.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Spending one billion pounds on increasing the Working Tax Credit will give more money to poorer families in work, will reduce what's called the "couples penalty" - the fact that there's a financial benefit to staying single.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Brown rejects "representations" i.e. Tory policy to tax domestic flights - as they would only achieve in a year what his Climate Change Levy achieved in a week.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Although the 2% cut in Corporation Tax is 1% less than the Tory promise this week neither plan involves an overall cut in business taxation. They involve restructuring the tax by cutting tax reliefs - the Tories all if them, Brown fewer of them.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Gordon Brown's old friends "asset sales" (what Harold Macmillan once derided as "selling off the family silver") and "efficiency savings" are being used to try to get a lot politically when he only has a little economically to play with.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

That's one tick on - a tribute to "the civil servants or should I say comrades" who helped with the Budget.

And so far no mention of Stalin.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Your handy budget check list for Gordon's last budget...

Rhetoric
鈥� A gag about cuts to the civil service a day after the former head of the civil service laid into him
鈥� No gag about Stalin who was, after all, a mass murderer
鈥� No mention of 5 years plans
鈥� Much talk about the economic success of the past 10 years

Shooting Tory foxes
鈥� Announcement on cut to corporation tax rates as called for by George Osbourne
鈥� More help for poorer families helping couples in particular
鈥� Green taxes on gas guzzlers

Attempts to embarrass the Tories
鈥� Rejection of "representations" to let families take only one foreign holiday a year
鈥� Rejection of "representations" to give a tax break to married couples

Rabbits out of the hat
鈥� A little something for pensioners

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

What on earth made him do that? That was the first question all who know the former Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull asked when they heard of .

It is not his style and, unlike some other senior civil servants, he's not known to have had any particularly fierce battles with the chancellor. I confess that my first thought was to ask how they'd managed to get him to say it and I hadn't. The answer is now clear. He didn't intend his comments to be public at all.

He believed, I'm told, that he was speaking off the record for a feature to be published after the Budget. Not that he denies making the comments or has distanced himself from them. Nor indeed has he criticised the FT but, friends say, he refers to his interview as "a classic cock up".

What matters, of course, is the contents and the credibility of what was said and not the intent of the person making the comments.

No one can question Lord Turnbull's qualifications to pass judgement. He's uniquely well placed to give an insight into the pros and cons of the chancellor's working methods. He was on the receiving end of Brown's dictats as permament secretary in the Department of the Environment. He then worked at his side at the Treasury before moving to Number Ten to see the Blair end of the Brown/Blair battles.

No one can suggest that his criticisms are not widely shared. Lord Turnbull's attack mirrors that of the former Home Secretary Charles Clarke - another who went rather further in print than they had planned to - and that of the anonymous Cabinet minister who told me that "Gordon Brown will make an f鈥ng terrible prime minister".

No one close to Gordon Brown protests that there's no truth in the suggestion that their guy exhibits "Stalinist ruthlessness" and has, at times, ignored, belittled or insulted other ministers.

No, the debate is about whether Brown's uncompromising style was good or bad for government and whether he needs to and is capable of changing his spots if he gets to Number 10.

The case against Brown is clearly spelt out in Turnbull and Clarke's interviews. Government, they argue, should be a team sport and he is not a team player. He and his clique have fought colleagues rather than working with them; divided government rather than united it; and been dictatorial rather than consultative. He has, in Tony Blair's phrase been "a great clunking fist".

The case for the defence is that Whitehall needed a good punch because it is still deeply conservative, resistant to change and risk averse. There would, it's argued by his allies, never have been independence of the Bank of England if the mandarins had had their way. There would never have been a plan to build thousands more houses without the Barker Report to challenge the environment department's complacency. What's more, they argue, some of the government's greatest mistakes came from the Treasury not interfering enough - look, they say, at the absurdly extravagant GP contract.

Does he need to change in Number Ten? All agree that the answer is yes. Prime ministers depend on wooing and cajoling other departments and have few levers themselves to pull. The debate is between those who think he's capable of it and those who, like Turnbull have... well... doubts...

PS Someone did persuade Lord Turnbull to go public with his concerns about not just Gordon Brown's approach but Tony Blair's as well. Anne Perkins' excellent documentary for Radio 4 called (MP3) is well worth listening to.

In it Turnbull says: 鈥淲as too much policy developed at the centre? Yes, I think it was. The occupants of 10 and 11 have got to be very sensitive to the downside of taking over a piece of policy that could be done in a department. It鈥檚 often a short sighted view because if you are constantly taking something over you will not develop the capability and also people won鈥檛 develop the sense of pride, they will actually feel belittled.鈥� He goes on 鈥淎ll the time you are leaning in the other direction, to say 鈥榥o, don鈥檛 do it that way, take it through a cabinet committee or something, something that may look quite bureaucratic but ultimately gives you a better decision and a better sense of buy in鈥� 鈥︹�� That is the tide that you are always swimming against 鈥�. I felt I was swimming against the tide which is quite tiring, but hopefully I wasn鈥檛 swept away.鈥�

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Is Tony Blair signalling that Parliament will get another vote in the years to come on whether to proceed with a replacement for Trident?

Look carefully at what he said in Prime Minister's Questions (watch it here). "It's today we need to take the decision," he said before adding the words, "for the concept and design stage". Later he said that it was always open for Parliament to look again at what he called the "gateway stage" - i.e. the moment the order for new submarines has to be placed - in 2012 to 2014. In other words, MPs may get to vote again before the subs are ordered.

Why does this matter? Because ministers are desperate to split the large number of rebels they currently face. Already some want to vote against Trident whilst others want to vote - with the Lib Dems - to delay the decision. A third group want an assurance that today's vote does not commit Britain to spend billions on replacing our nuclear deterrent and keeping it for decades to come without the issue ever being voted on again.

That group have been given a hint by the PM today. The question is whether, before the end of this debate, there is more than a hint - namely a commitment to another vote in a few years time. Of course, that would have to come not from the PM but his likely successor, Gordon Brown. He obviously can't say anything but watch carefully for the words of his namesake, and close ally the defence secretary in the minutes before the vote.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the greenest of them all?

It's not every day that an opposition leader who's ahead in the polls announces "Look, I'm going to put taxes up and I want to make it more expensive to have holidays and fun at the weekends". That, though, is what David Cameron is doing with his announcement that he wants to make flying more expensive. The question then is why?

One part of the answer is that he is sincere in his concerns about climate change and knows that aviation, though by no means the biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, is the fastest growing. (See my previous blog entry and listen to the Decision Time programme here for the arguments on taxing aviation.)

It's important to understand the other parts of the answer too. Having promised not to cut taxation overall the Tories need to raise some taxes to cut others. Green taxes go up so "family taxes" can come down or, as George Osborne likes to put it "pay as you burn not as you earn". They are determined too to start answering the "Where's the beef?" question by coming up with some croncrete(ish) policies.

Most critical of all though to the timing of this announcement is to convince the electorate that Brown is not, and never will be, green. His big speech on the environment is today. The Climate Change Bill is unveiled tomorrow. The Budget - which will be viewed in part through green spectacles - is next week.

So, the political gains of all of this are clear. The pain should be evident too. A growing rump of David Cameron's party - led by Margaret Thatcher's former chancellor Nigel Lawson - see climate change as the latest excuse to raise your taxes, burden business with regulation and increase the power of the government. They are fighting back.

Mr Cameron may shrug off the apparent scepticism of the likes of his shadow defence spokesman Liam Fox and the head of his economic competitiveness group John Redwood. He should feel less relaxed though about the fact he's being praised this morning in the editorials of the and the and criticised by the , , and .

Just as radical euro-scepticism is declining as a problem for the Tories could the green sceptics be on the rise?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Lordy Lordy. What are we to make of ? Was it a first step on the path to elections for our second chamber or the first step on leading to a constitutional ditch? Rarely have I felt so unsure about what lies ahead so I'll set out both cases and let you choose.

Why it might be a first step on the path to elections for our second chamber:

鈥� Whatever the reasons MPs may have had in their minds, last night's vote was for what it said on the paper - a fully elected Lords. That will create its own momentum
鈥� The likely next prime minister and his possible successor are both committed to electing 80% of peers and are likely to put that in their next manifesto
鈥� The political mood has changed for good - partly for generational reasons and partly thanks to the cash for honours investigation. Many MPs are now embarrassed to be heard arguing for a fully apppointed House of Lords
鈥� This is an idea whose time has come

Why it might be the first step on a muddy, potholed road leading to a constitutional ditch:

鈥� The vote for 100% elected Lords was swelled by those who wanted anything but that. They were seeking to provoke a confrontation with the Lords. Previous reforms have been defeated by unholy alliances eg Enoch Powell and Michael Foot in the 70s
鈥� They'll succeed as peers of all parties are predominantly opposed to elections
鈥� Many peers are not just fighting for a principle but for their job, their pay, their perk and their pension. All good reasons they won't give in easily
鈥� Gordon Brown's not daft enough to waste his first few months in office or the first few months after an election victory fighting a protracted battle about a topic which no-one down "The Dog & Duck" cares about
鈥� David Cameron told his peers that this was a priority (wait for it) for his third term in office!
鈥� The devil is in the detail - i.e how peers will be elected, by whom, when, to a body called what and with which powers - and last night's vote was not about any of that.

Your view then?

P.S.The act of writing this made me come to a view. It will be the first step on the path to elections for our second chamber but the road to it will be muddy, potholed and lined with ditches so no-one can tell how long it will take to travel. Cop out, me?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

What was I saying before I was so rudely interrupted...

Yates of the Yard has just walked in to Court 37 of the Royal Courts of Justice. He's there because the 大象传媒 is back in court facing lawyers from the Attorney General's Office. The day after the injunction against the 大象传媒 was lifted, our lawyers are arguing that the reasons why the injunction was sought and granted should now be made public.

I am not in court today. Indeed reporters and the public were thrown out after the first few minutes of the hearing so that the arguments could be heard in private.

When the injunction was secured the Attorney's lawyers had to present the Metropolitan Police argument that our broadcast would undermine their investigation. Whilst our lawyer heard those arguments he was permitted only to tell a handful of the most senior executives at the 大象传媒, who were themselves barred from telling those of us working on the story.

At the beginning of today's hearing the 大象传媒's lawyer Manuel Barca said that the issue had "generated acute public concern," and that there was, "no justification for putting 'on ice' the reporting of the reasons for an injunction which has now been lifted." He went on to say that the Attorney was "trying to put off the inevitable," and that it "smacks of a delaying tactic."

In response Philip Havers, the solicitor for the Attorney General said, "it is vital for reasons I won't go in to, that both sides are clear what can and cannot be reported about Friday's hearing." Amusingly, he argued that the case should be postponed and heard by Justice Wilkie - who granted the original injunction - and not by Mrs Justice Swift, who lifted it and refused the application to injunct the Guardian.

I can only assume that Assistant Commissioner Yates has been summoned to explain to the judge why he feels that certain information should remain secret...

UPDATE 17:30: It's just been announced that the verdict will not be announced until tomorrow.

---

PS: Forgive the recent break in normal service. The past couple of days have been so frantic and relentless that I never quite made it to the keyboard to blog. Never before have I spent so much time talking to lawyers - more, I suspect, than is really healthy for a journalist.

I'm well aware, by the way, that the drama of fighting in the courts for the right to tell your story is the stuff of story books for many journalists and a bit of a yawn for everyone else.

I've no doubt that many people will wonder why I thought it worth while spending virtually every waking hour since Thursday first writing and then re-writing scripts after endless meetings with lawyers and 大象传媒 executives. Others will question the rightness of our reporting on an ongoing police investigation.

I will return to these topics in the next day or two. In the meantime, for those interested in this debate, can I recommend listening to my boss's interview on Radio 4's Today programme this morning (click here) and the Attorney General's on the World at One (click here).

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I find myself in the somewhat surreal position this morning of having read two days of newspaper reports of what is alleged to have been the story which I - along with my colleague Reeta Chakrabati - had hoped to broadcast on Friday night's Ten O'Clock News but being unable to broadcast it or to give any indication of whether any of these stories come close to what we planned to broadcast. To do otherwise would risk being in contempt of court - a serious offence. What is interesting is to see how cautious some papers are and how brave (reckless?) others have been.

There are a couple of things I am at liberty to write about - the role of the attorney general and the speculation/gossip about the source.

I see absolutely no evidence that the attorney did anything other than what all previous occupants of his post would have done, ie to respond to a request from the Metropolitan Police for an injunction. He was, as he has claimed, acting in his capacity as an independent lawyer not as a politician. The widespread disbelief which this assertion provokes probably means that the ancient post of attorney general will not survive - or at least not in this form - beyond Lord Goldsmith's tenure.

Now for the sourcing. "It must have been Downing Street" say unnamed police sources quoted in certain papers confirming the worst suspicions of the government's enemies. Pause a second and wind back. Last time we did a story of this sort - the story of "the K and the big P" - Downing Street sources were quoted as saying it must have been the police. In my experience of journalism it is rarely as simple as one side or the other handing you a story or a document on a plate.

In fact that has only happened to me once in my entire career when as a rookie political producer I called a member of a controversial Labour party policy review group who I'd never spoken to before. I fully expected that I would have to spend some time and money - in the form of the odd lunch or drink - on building a relationship before getting a proper insight to the issue. "I suppose you'd like all the documents then?" was my new source's first question on the phone. "Shall we meet for a drink" I asked. "No need" came the reply, "I'll leave them in a brown envelope for you". If only all stories were like that.

PS: I mistakenly referred to the attorney the other day as a member of Cabinet. He attends but is not a member. Sorry. You can find more information on his role .

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It's been an interesting evening for lawyers - and a rather more frustrating one for journalists.

Lawyers representing the 大象传媒 and lawyers representing the Attorney General spent about two hours locked away at the Royal Courts of Justice this evening. The decision came about 21:00 - and that decision was an injunction, sought by the Attorney General, preventing the 大象传媒 from broadcasting an item it had planned to show tonight about the cash-for-honours investigation.

This will be baffling for the public, and I'm afraid I can't unbaffle many of you - there are strict limits on what we can say and report. But what we can say is that as far as we are aware, this is the first injunction that has been sought - and it is certainly the first successful one - in a long process of media reporting on this investigation.

A spokesman for the Attorney has said that the move was taken in response to a request from the Metropolitan Police, who were concerned that the disclosure of information contained in the story could have harmed their inquiry. The spokesman added that Lord Goldsmith - a member of the Cabinet - was acting independently of the Government in seeking the injunction.

Readers will know that there have been complaints from those involved in the investigation that there has been so much reporting - so much of what they refer to as speculation - during an ongoing police investigation. And while this injunction means that this particular news item cannot be broadcast, it's not yet clear what the implication is for any future broadcast.

PS: You may notice below that I've closed this post to comments. Sorry about that, but as I mentioned above, there are strict limits on what can be said.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Who says that Labour's deputy leadership race changes nothing?

Pressure from a union - the GMB - persuaded several candidates - Hain, Cruddas and Johnson - to express their concerns about an industry - the private equity sector of the City - which has persuaded the Treasury to persuade the industry that it better change its ways or else.

The private equity boys have made millions buying up under performing British companies and, depending on your point of view, turning them round and making them competitive or asset-stripping and job cutting. A fifth of British jobs are in firms that are backed by private equity. The controversy is, in truth, about a handful of big names - the AA, National Car Parks and talk of a takeover of Sainsburys.

The first sign of what was up came when Ed Balls made clear that it was in the industry鈥檚 interests to agree with government on ways to enhance transparency and disclosure. 鈥淢y message to private equity is that coming forward with proposals for greater transparency in the way they operate would be in the interests of their industry and the UK economy more generally,鈥� he said.

Hey presto, the creation of a working party to look at, you guessed it, disclosure.

Politics working as it should, or union pressure forcing the Treasury to shackle one of the most successful parts of the UK economy? You pays your money and you make your choice...

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?