Why did Cameron set up this damaging inquiry in the first place?

Louise Mensch, one of my favourite Tory MPs, has had a good morning watching Gordon Brown at the Leveson inquiry and wishing that he could be on all the time to remind people why they voted Conservative last time.

She won’t be so cheerful this afternoon when George Osborne goes in the box. By then, if she were not so loyal to the Tory leadership, she would be joining the conventionally wise in wondering why David Cameron ever set up this stupid inquiry.

Several commentators have recently remarked that the Prime Minister must be wishing that he had refrained from asking Sir Brian Leveson to conduct an inquiry “into the culture, practices and ethics of the press”.

What short memories people have. Cameron did not want to set up an inquiry. It was called for by Ed Miliband, whom I mocked for resorting to that standard bleat of opposition for opposition’s sake, the fipi (the “full and independent public inquiry”). Cameron brushed it aside.

Then Nick Clegg told him that there should be one.

This was the point at which Cameron should have shown some steel. He should have explained to the Deputy Prime Minister that the inquiry could only harm the Government as a whole, and that if the Liberal Democrats thought it would help with their differentiation strategy they were deluded.

Then what would Clegg have done? Asked the Lib Dems to vote with Labour against the Conservatives in the House of Commons, possibly ending the coalition, bringing the Government down and forcing a general election?* On the issue of an inquiry into phone hacking? I think not.

Update (I don’t know how to import Facebook comments into the blog without cutting and pasting, but here is one and my reply):

Steffan John You seem to be arguing that the inquiry shouldn’t have happened and Clegg shouldn’t have pushed for it, because it’s letting the public know how politics and power operates today, and they dont like it much.

Surely that’s a great reason *to* have it?

John Rentoul The inquiry is doing no such thing. It is pointless and meandering. If it were needed at all, it should have concerned itself with simple problems: (1) the use of phone hacking and other illegal methods of news gathering; (2) the relationship between press and police.

*But what about the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, you might ask? Well, what about it? If the Conservatives refused to carry on in a minority government, Labour and Lib Dems could try to stitch together the alternative rainbow alliance that would have to include every single non-Conservative MP, but if that didn’t work there would have had to be an election after 14 days.

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye

• Why the Treasury thinks the deficit rose last year
• Men of Secrets II
• Men of Secrets
• The Dawn of Time
• The Fiction of Gatsby

• porkfright

  Every time you write one of these political pieces, Mr. Rentoul, I am more convinced than ever of my belief that our real and enduring problem here is that of our truly incompetent political class.

• NT86

  Damaging according to whom? The media barons? The politicians getting comfy with them?

  What about people like the Dowler family, the McCann’s, Christopher Jefferies, Anne Diamond, and other countless individuals whose lives have been blighted and privacy intruded?

  No one is trying to curtail press freedom. But there are huge questions about the QUALITY and INTEGRITY of certain media groups operating in unethical ways.

• creggancowboy

  Why am I unsurprised at your admiration for La Bagshawe? Is it her call for the arrest of Ron Broxted for telling the truth? Oi Evgeni, fire Jody McIntyre and trebles all round!!

• Inkypuss

  I don’t know why Cameron ordered an enquiry but I do know that it was needed.

• sheffieldutd

  The Broxted/Rehill imbroglio shows how far down the path the UK has mutated into becoming a police state. When Mensch refused to answer why there is no anonymity for rape trial accused (Evans, Assange) Louise threatened an award winning blogger with jail. News just in – North Wales Police may be found guilty of fabricating evidence something Haslam (retired aged 42 in Oct 1989 on mental health grounds) knows all about.

• http://twitter.com/francessmith frances smith

  i’m sorry, obviously you are free to favour whichever tory mp you want, though if i were you i would have a rethink before judgment day, just in case your choice ensures your immersion in the fiery depths of hell.

  but the twitter comment that so impressed you is the sort of routine trolling comment that most of us below the line would be embarrassed to have our name attached to.

  are you standards really that low, john?

• bugedone

  NNo sorry, not buying it. Mensch is wrong on this one. If course it has been damaging to those politicians who have got rather too cosy with News International, and it has been even more embarrassing for many in the media, but this is a good thing. Most will get through it with minor injuries, and those who suffer a career-ending (or liberty threatening) one deserve it. We have clean this shit out of our system and this presented an opportunity.

  You are right about Miliband being an opportunist rather than an inspired leader, but it is possible to be right for the wrong reasons. Cameron was weak because he was up to his neck in it.

• roobosh

  This was an enquiry into the ethical practices of the press, which is exactly the broad remit that was required. No-one knew the full extent of hacking for a long time after the story was broken, the inquiry was set up to see if there were other immoral practices within the nations newspapers. A lot of people would argue that the cosy relationship between the media and politicians is unethical. You seem more concerned with Cameron’s attempts at playing politics than the actual issue at hand.