British prime minister David Cameron came out fighting in Parliament at Prime Minister’s Questions today, seeking to distance himself from the News of the World scandal and refute Labour leader Ed Miliband’s claim that hiring former News of the World editor Andy Coulson was a “catastrophic error of judgement.” Miliband, who jumped immediately on the scandal to revitalize a flagging leadership — but has ostensibly seen no increase in popularity as a result — has moved beyond a more general attempt to tie the prime minister to the alleged transgressions of his former aide, and come out all guns blazing. Watergate this is not, but you wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric: “This can’t be put down to gross ignorance,” Miliband said in Parliament, accusing Cameron and his aides of meeting his requests “with a wall of silence.” There has been “a deliberate attempt to hide from the facts on Mr. Coulson.”

The prime minister hit back effectively, accusing his opposite number of expounding a “litany of rather pathetic conspiracy theories to try and win a political game,” and explaining that he himself had an “old-fashioned view about innocent before proven guilty,” which meant that there would be a “moment for a profound apology” only if it became evident that he had been lied to. It is only reasonable to take the opposition’s line, argued the prime minister, “with 20:20 hindsight . . . but you don’t make decisions in hindsight.” The subtext here is that, while Cameron “regrets” what has happened, he cannot apologize, as he had no knowledge of Mr. Coulson’s misbehavior. The extent to which he was aware even of rumors is the million-dollar question here; if Cameron is telling the truth, then his case is watertight.

Cameron was keen to establish that his responsibility was for appointing Mr. Coulson and for Coulson’s conduct as an employee of No. 10 Downing Street, not for his time at the News of the World. He reiterated that he was unaware of any wrongdoing when Andy Coulson was appointed, and noted that no one has “made a complaint against” Coulson’s tenure as the prime minister’s director of communications, nor about “the work he did for the government.” He was backed up by a few Conservative backbenchers, who strove to make clear that the scandal occurred whilst the Labour party was in power and made sure to mention Tom Baldwin, Ed Miliband’s aide who used to work for News International. Cameron is clearly taking a strong line: that whatever Andy Coulson did or did not do at the News of the World, it has nothing to do with his former role as director of communications for the office of the prime minister. This may well stick.

#more#

Today’s project for the prime minister was to paint Ed Miliband as being shallow, unfair, and opportunistic, and to undermine the tactic of guilt by association. In this endeavor he appears to have made some progress. It was vital that he projected confidence, and, with a couple of exceptions, he did. The House of Commons is an inherently adversarial chamber, and it is never more so than at the Punch and Judy show that is Prime Minister’s Questions. When one steps back and considers it, the usefulness of PMQs is debatable, but the impact of each side’s performance on the national political mood is not. Much as Michael Dukakis did himself a disservice with his infamous posing in a tank, a flabby offering at the despatch box can be fatal. What Jeremy Paxman described as the “pernicious influence of the Oxford Union” lives on, and to come across as fluent, confident, witty and — most important — in control, carries as much weight as the content of one’s message. Cameron sometimes looked exasperated today, but more because of the repeated, occasionally child-like questions than because he was out of his depth. Cameron’s answers played into the British sense of fair play.

As a Brit who often despairs of the sensationalist and shallow manner in which much of British politics is conducted, my sense is that, outside of those already afflicted by Murdoch derangement syndrome and those on the hard left, the British are not buying the message peddled by the Labour party. There will undoubtedly be a backlash against Rupert Murdoch and his organs, and the scandal will probably play into the latent British distrust of big business. It may well create public support for yet more regulation. But, after today’s exchange, I cannot see the government being dragged into the maelstrom in any way that will have a significant effect on its survival or popularity. As George Eustace, another former press secretary, said, “I don’t think there’s anything else a prime minister could do.”

Still, the inevitable attempt to tie this scandal to reform (which I noted yesterday), got a shot in the arm from, of all places, David Cameron. When PMQs had finished, the prime minister made a speech about the press in general. He noted that: “The left overestimates the power of Mr. Murdoch, the right overdoes the left-leaning of the BBC, but both of them have got a point — and never again should we let a media group get too powerful.” For a conservative to conflate a publicly owned and funded broadcasting system and the transgressions of a private corporation is unthinkable, but that he did. David Cameron may well be able to escape the scandal unscathed, but the free press most probably will not.