Connect with us
...

Politics

Matt Hancock and Isabel Oakeshott

Published

on

He says it was a “breach of trust”. She insists it was in the public interest. What does the row between Matt Hancock and the reporter who leaked his WhatsApp messages reveal about how journalism works?

It’s a brilliant scoop.

And, in the world of journalism and beyond, scoops are the stories you remember.

They can bring down Presidents (think Watergate), force MPs from office (think the MPs’ expenses scandal) and they can even shine a spotlight on the worst excesses of the media (think phone hacking).

The Telegraph’s Lockdown Files are an insight into decision-making at the heart of government during the most testing and turbulent time in recent British history.

But behind them is a fascinating story of betrayal and journalistic ethics.

On one side is Isabel Oakeshott.

A political journalist with a proven track record of breaking stories, she is also an anti-lockdown campaigner and the partner of the man who leads Reform UK – the reincarnation of the Brexit Party, which aims to take seats from the Conservatives at the next election.

She’s no stranger to controversy.

Her previous journalism led to the jailing of both Chris Huhne, a former cabinet minister who broke speeding laws, and the source of the story, his ex-wife Vicky Pryce, who took his points.

Ms Oakeshott also co-authored a book in 2015 about then-Prime Minister David Cameron. Famously, Call Me Dave included an unsubstantiated allegation about a sex act on a dead pig’s head.

Watch: Isabel Oakeshott reveals why she leaked the messages

On the other side is Matt Hancock. Health secretary throughout the pandemic, Mr Hancock had to resign after breaking his government’s own lockdown rules, and, while still an MP, has been trying to rebrand himself on reality TV, most notably with a successfully protracted appearance on I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here.

Giving Ms Oakeshott the means, potentially at least, to damage that brand can’t have been part of his plan. But that is exactly what he has unwittingly done.

Landing the story

Her scoop for the Telegraph is journalistically unusual. Often these stories are delivered by leaks from brave and trusted sources, who sometimes put their jobs on the line in the name of the public interest or to expose wrongdoing.

We don’t know, for example, who leaked the details to ITV of the revelations about lockdown parties in Downing Street during the pandemic. Perhaps we never will.

The Telegraph’s Covid splash is very different because Matt Hancock is the source. His ghostwriter really has come back to haunt him.

When the pair decided to collaborate on his Pandemic Diaries, Mr Hancock’s diary-style account of his experience of government during Covid, Ms Oakeshott signed a confidentiality agreement.

He handed over more than 100,000 WhatsApp messages between himself, other ministers, aides and public health advisors.

These are the messages she has now given to the Telegraph. We are promised perhaps a week of revelations. Questions are being asked about Matt Hancock’s judgment in trusting Isabel Oakeshott at all.

Words matter

In a sense this story is about words – 2.3m of them, delivered in the WhatsApps, and the ensuing war of words between Ms Oakeshott and Mr Hancock.

Each has a very different interpretation of events.

She says, backed by the Telegraph, that her decision to publish the messages is in the public interest. “No journalist worth their salt,” she told Radio 4’s Today programme, “would sit on a cache of information on such a historic matter and cover that up.”

Mr Hancock issued a statement saying there is “absolutely no public interest case for this huge breach” because he has already given them to the UK’s independent public inquiry into the pandemic.

He says releasing the messages was a “massive betrayal and breach of trust”.

Ms Oakeshott put out a statement today saying she makes “no apology for acting in the national interest: the worst betrayal of all would be to cover up these truths”.

She added “the greatest betrayal” was to the entire country and to children in particular, who “paid a terrible price” as a result of “the response to the pandemic and repeated unnecessary lockdowns”.

Mr Hancock has termed the Telegraph stories a “partial, biased account to suit an anti-lockdown agenda”.

A spokesperson added: “It is outrageous that this distorted account of the pandemic is being pushed with partial leaks, spun to fit an anti-lockdown agenda, which would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives if followed.”

Ms Oakeshott told Piers Morgan on Talk TV, where she is also international editor, that Mr Hancock reneged on an undertaking to do an interview with the channel after the book was published. “It’s not of course the reason I did this,” she added. Others may wonder whether they cross her at their peril.

Isabel Oakeshott
Isabel Oakeshott

In another example of two opposing narratives, Ms Oakeshott says she was not paid to write the book.

An ally of Mr Hancock told me: “It’s incredibly disingenuous and misleading to say she hasn’t been paid for the book. She has and will also receive royalties.”

Those royalties might not be very large if reports that the book sold just 3,304 copies in its first week and 600 in the second are correct. Publisher Biteback declined to comment when approached by the BBC.

Telling stories

So what does the saga tell us about how the media operates?

Journalism often works on trust. Clearly that’s broken down in this case, although people are asking why, even with a confidentiality agreement, Mr Hancock felt he could trust Ms Oakeshott.

The Telegraph, presented with the cache of messages, decided, as its Associate Editor Camilla Tominey put it, that “the public has a right to know as much as possible”. The decisions made during the pandemic were a “matter of life or death”.

They will have taken advice that the confidentiality agreement can be broken in the public interest – and that Mr Hancock is unlikely to sue. He is understood to be examining all options open to him.

Matt Hancock

If it is correct that he wasn’t notified before publication, that would be an interesting insight into the workings of journalism. It is customary to offer people a right of reply, often with some time built in ahead of publication.

However, that window can be squeezed on a breaking story, or if it is decided that offering a longer time frame might give the subject time to block publication.

In the end though, the background to the Lockdown Files may tell us more about how Isabel Oakeshott operates than about the media more widely.

She has become the story, at least in part, touring the TV and radio studios and sparking debate about how it came about.

Sir Craig Oliver, who served as director of politics and communications for David Cameron, told me that “the danger for Isabel Oakeshott is that she ends up caught up in a row about journalistic ethics which overshadows what she is trying to achieve”.

He added: “She wanted to bring forward the lessons of the public inquiry, to highlight decisions made about lockdown and the experiences of children in school, for example. She probably didn’t intend the debate also to also focus on the ethics of journalism.”

For some, she’s delivered an important scoop and the way she got the story is entirely justified. Others feel differently.

One thing is certain: the roll-out of stories goes on.

Reports /TrainViral/

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Gething downfall delivers Starmer 1st headache

Published

on

By

Just when you’d have been forgiven for thinking politics might quieten down a bit…

The Welsh Labour government was for so long a case study in how the party could operate in power during its long years of opposition at Westminster.

And yet here we are less than a fortnight into a UK Labour government, and the Welsh Labour government is imploding.

So much for all that talk about bringing stability back to politics.

Last week Vaughan Gething was sharing smiles here not just with the new prime minister but the King too.

Now, he’s a goner, delivering Sir Keir Starmer a headache rather than a handshake.

When I was here in March covering Mr Gething’s victory, the seeds of his political demise were germinating before our eyes.

The donations row had already sprouted and his defeated opponent, Jeremy Miles, legged it from the venue without so much as any warm words about the victor on camera.

It was another sign of the cultivating anger, the political knotweed that would soon flourish and ensnare Vaughan Gething.

Along came the row about alleged leaking, a sacking, a confidence vote — and a first minister whose tenure up until today at least amounts to 2.4 times that of Liz Truss. Ouch.

Westminster has generated its fair share of turbulence in the last decade.

But it is far from unique as a source of turbulence in UK politics.

In February, Michelle O’Neill became first minister of Northern Ireland with Emma Little-Pengelly her deputy, after a long period without devolved government at Stormont.

In March, we had a new first minister of Wales, when Mark Drakeford stood down and Vaughan Gething took the job.

In April we had the resignation of the first minister of Scotland Humza Yousaf.

He was replaced the following month by John Swinney. June was the quiet month then. Just the small matter of a general election campaign.

And here we are in July, and Mr Gething is resigning.

So will begin another leadership race, a new government in Wales, a new first minister and a new team of senior Welsh ministers.

There will also be more arguments about Welsh Labour – its direction, its priorities, its capacity to govern effectively and its relationship with the UK party.

If you’re watching this in Downing Street, it’s the last thing you need.

Reports /Trainviral/

Continue Reading

Politics

Shoplifting crackdown expected to be unveiled

Published

on

By

A crackdown on shoplifting is expected to be announced in the King’s Speech on Wednesday.

The government is due to unveil a new crime bill to target people who steal goods worth less than £200.

The policy would be a reversal of 2014 legislation that meant “low-value” thefts worth under £200 were subject to less serious punishment.

The government is also expected to introduce a specific offence of assaulting a shop worker to its legislative agenda.

It will not be clear until legislation passes through Parliament what the punishments for any new or strengthened offences would be.

Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that last year was the worst on record for shoplifting in England and Wales.

Police recorded over 430,000 offences in those nations in 2023 – though retailers say underreporting means these figures are likely to represent only a fraction of the true number of incidents.

Michelle Whitehead, who works at a convenience store in Wolverhampton, said her shop had been “hit every day” by thieves.

People were stealing “absolutely anything” including “tins of spam, tins of corned beef, all the fresh meat”, Ms Whitehead told BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme.

“They’re just coming in, getting their whole arm and sweeping the lot off the shelves,” she said. “The shelves were always empty.”

She said she believed “organised” criminal gangs, rather than individuals struggling with the cost of living, were behind the thefts in her shop.

The crackdown on “low-value” shoplifting “will help a lot of little shops,” Ms Whitehead said.

While retailers and shop workers have welcomed the anticipated proposals, a civil liberties group has raised concerns about criminalising people struggling to make ends meet and overburdening the prison system.

The new legal measures are expected to be announced as part of the King’s Speech on Wednesday, a key piece of the State Opening of Parliament that allows the government to outline its priorities over the coming months.

Before the general election, the Labour Party pledged to reverse what it described as the “shoplifter’s charter” – a piece of 2014 legislation that reduced the criminal punishment for “low-value shoplifting”.

Tom Holder, spokesperson for the British Retail Consortium (BRC), told BBC News the impact of the 2014 legislation has been to “deprioritise it in the eyes of police”.

“I think police would be less likely to turn up to what they see as low-level theft,” he said.

Shoplifting cost retailers £1.8 billion in the last year, which could impact prices, according to the BRC.

“Shoplifting harms everyone in that sense – those costs eventually get made up somewhere, whether it’s prices going up or other prices that can’t come down,” Mr Holder said.

Co-op campaigns and public affairs director Paul Gerrard said the supermarket chain had also recorded rising theft and violence against shop workers.

“There’s always been people who will steal to make ends meet. That’s not what is behind the rise we’ve seen,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Tuesday. “What’s behind that rise is individuals and gangs targeting large volumes of stock in stores for resale in illicit venues like pubs, clubs, markets, and out the back of cars.”

But Jodie Beck, policy and campaigns officer at civil liberties organisation Liberty, had concerns about the expected proposals, saying there is “already a wide range of powers” the police can use to tackle shoplifting and anti-social behaviour levelled at retail staff.

Ms Beck said the “£200 threshold” would not just target criminal gangs but also “people who are pushed into the desperate situation of not paying for things” because they cannot afford to make ends meet.

She urged the government to avoid focusing on “criminal justice and policing solutions instead of doing the thoughtful work of looking at the root causes of crime, which we believe are related to poverty and inequality”.

Ms Beck also argued the additional legislation could serve to worsen the UK’s “enormous court backlog” and its “bursting prison system”.

Last week, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced plans to release thousands of prisoners early to ease overcrowding in the country’s prisons.

A spokesperson for Downing Street said the government would not comment on the King’s Speech until it has been delivered by the monarch.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council has been approached for comment.

Reports /Trainviral/

Continue Reading

Politics

Government launches ‘root and branch’ review

Published

on

By

Defence Secretary John Healey hailed the government’s defence review as the “first of its kind” and said it will “take a fresh look at the challenges we face”.

Mr Healey noted the “increasing instability and uncertainty” around the world, including the conflict in the Middle East and war in Ukraine, and said “threats are growing”.

The strategic defence review will consider the current state of the armed forces, the threats the UK faces and the capabilities needed to address them.

Sir Keir Starmer has previously said the review will set out a “roadmap” to the goal of spending 2.5% of national income on defence – a target he has made a “cast iron” commitment to but is yet to put a timeline on.

On Monday, the prime minister said the “root and branch review” of the armed forces would help prepare the UK for “a more dangerous and volatile world”.

The review will invite submissions from the military, veterans, MPs, the defence industry, the public, academics and the UK’s allies until the end of September and aims to deliver its findings in the first half of 2025.

“I promised the British people I would deliver the change needed to take our country forward, and I promised action not words,” Sir Keir said.

“That’s why one of my first acts since taking office is to launch our strategic defence review.

“We will make sure our hollowed out armed forces are bolstered and respected, that defence spending is responsibly increased, and that our country has the capabilities needed to ensure the UK’s resilience for the long term.”

The review will be overseen by Defence Secretary John Healey and headed by former Nato Secretary General Lord Robertson along with former US presidential advisor Fiona Hill and former Joint Force Commander Gen Sir Richard Barrons.

The group will have their work cut out.

The global security threats facing the UK and its Western allies are more serious and more complex than at any time since the end of the Cold War in 1990.

They also coincide with what many commentators have said is a catastrophic running down of the UK’s armed forces to the point where the country is arguably no longer considered to be a Tier One military force.

In terms of the number of troops in its regular forces, the British Army is now at its smallest size since the time of the Napoleonic Wars two centuries ago.

Recruitment is failing to match retention, with many soldiers and officers complaining about neglected and substandard accommodation.

The Royal Navy, which has spent vast sums on its two centrepiece aircraft carriers, is in need of many more surface ships to fulfil its tasks around the globe.

Its ageing fleet of nuclear-armed Vanguard submarines, the cornerstone of the UK’s strategic defence and known as the Continuous At Sea Deterrent (CASD), is overdue for replacement by four Dreadnought class submarines and costs are mounting.

Commenting on the review, Mr Healey said: “Hollowed-out armed forces, procurement waste and neglected morale cannot continue.”

Too many UK commitments?

The defence and security threats facing the UK, Nato and its allies further afield are multiple.

They include a war raging on Europe’s eastern flank in Ukraine against Russia’s full-scale invasion. The UK, along with the EU and Nato, has opted to help defend Ukraine with multi-billion pound packages of weapons and aid, stopping short of committing combat troops.

The policy behind this is not entirely altruistic. European governments, especially those closest to Russia like Poland and the Baltic states, fear that if President Putin wins the war in Ukraine it will not be long before he rebuilds his army and invades them next.

Some of those countries are already busy beefing up their own defence spending closer to 3% or even 4% of GDP.

The challenge for Nato has been how to provide Ukraine with as much weaponry as it can, without provoking Russia into retaliating against a Nato state and risk triggering a third world war.

The Royal Navy has been in action recently in the Red Sea, where it has been operating alongside the US Navy in fending off attacks on shipping by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

But the UK has also made naval commitments further afield in the South China Sea with the Aukus pact, comprising of Australia, UK and the US, aimed at containing Chinese expansion in the region.

Critics have questioned whether a financially-constrained UK can afford to make commitments like this on the other side of the world.

Closer to home in Europe, there is a growing threat from so-called “hybrid warfare” attacks, suspected of coming from Russia.

These are anonymous, unattributable attacks on undersea pipelines and telecoms cables on which Western nations depend.

As tensions increase with Moscow there are fears such actions will only increase and the UK cannot possibly hope to guard all of its coastline all of the time.

But while those nervous Nato partners living close to Russia’s borders are busy beefing up their defence spending closer to 3 or even 4% of GDP, the UK has so far declined to put a timetable on when it will raise its own defence spending to just 2.5%.

Opposition figures have criticised the government for refusing to say when defence spending will be increased.

Before his election defeat, former prime minister Rishi Sunak committed to reaching 2.5% by 2030.

Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge previously said: “In a world that is more volatile and dangerous than at any time since the Cold War, Keir Starmer’s Labour government had a clear choice to match the Conservatives’ fully funded pledge to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030.

“By failing to do so, they’ve created huge uncertainty for our armed forces, at the worst possible time.”

Reports /Trainviral/

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 TechDaja News.