Cash for Cameron: Murdoch's glee?

Rupert Murdoch surrounded by photographers Does Rupert Murdoch want revenge against the man who set up the Leveson Inquiry?

Hell hath no fury like a media mogul scorned.

Witness Rupert Murdoch's tweet: "@rupertmurdoch: Of course there must be a full independent inquiry on both sides. In great detail, and with consequences. Trust must be established."

And the Sun's editorial which says: "Millions will wonder if Osborne scrapped the 50p rate after a few cosy lunches with millionaire backers."

Could it be that Rupert Murdoch wishes to see the man who set up the Leveson Inquiry go through the same agonisingly painful scrutiny as he has?

And why not, many will ask, after the extraordinary video of the Tory co-treasurer offering to sell access to the prime minister's private dinner table and his policy unit. Shouldn't we be told which donors the PM has meetings and dinners with?

Number 10 are for now sticking to the line that what happens in David Cameron's private flat is, well, private. However, they must know that it is very hard to explain the distinction between what happens downstairs on official business and upstairs on private business. So, the pressure will mount, particularly as Mr Cameron himself has said that transparency "is the best disinfectant".

We are already told who gives money to political parties, but what access they get in return is not published. On the Today programme this morning Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude confirmed what the Conservative website advertises - that you can pay to have dinner with the PM by spending £50,000 to join the Leader's Group.

Labour has a rather more modest "Thousand Club", but Tony Blair's former fundraiser Lord Levy made clear that he invited the PM to dinners for big donors held "at private homes". These events are not and were not listed in the list of the prime minister's official engagements.

Some will assume that the only reason the Tories will not publish a full list of who their leader has met is because they have something to hide. We shall see.

Peter Cruddas Mr Cruddas resigned after footage of him apparently selling ministerial access emerged

There is, though, one other reason - a worry about where transparency will stop.

Downing Street already publishes the once secret, via the backdoor, meetings with Mr Murdoch and other senior media folk. If they now add donors David Cameron may worry that the list could be extended to people with other interests to lobby for - after all, don't doctors and teachers have interests which they argue for, or people with foreign passports, or cheerleaders for particular causes?

Should the names of family members and friends be published too in case they are privately arguing for this or that policy?

When the public loses trust in institutions they tend to demand a revelation of all the facts.

MPs found that to their cost after the expenses scandal. Rupert Murdoch is living with the consequences of the phone hacking scandal.

David Cameron may wish to protect his privacy, but I suspect that the lasting legacy of the "bluster" of the former co-treasurer, Peter Cruddas, will be that we will end up being told who the prime minister has dinner with - perhaps even in his own flat.

Nick Robinson Article written by Nick Robinson Nick Robinson Political editor

NHS: Where will the money come from?

Beneath the rhetoric there is a lot of consensus on the NHS but where will the money come from to fund the big changes needed?

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Nick


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 13.

    "Mr Cameron himself has said that transparency "is the best disinfectant"."

    If he has nothing to hide what is he afraid of...I have nothing to hide if anyone wants to know who I had dinner with?

  • rate this

    Comment number 12.

    You'll be telling me next that the NHS reforms were influenced by vested internests that happen to have the PM's ear.........

    (There's a bloody big hint BBC; I wonder if you'll follow it up?)

  • rate this

    Comment number 11.

    I'm left wondering whether David Cameron's recent support for the proposed new London airport in the Thames Estuary was on the back of a cosy lunch or two at Number 10!

  • rate this

    Comment number 10.

    It is ok gagging the press, but we have a right to know about things like this. I suspect the cabinet knew exactly what was going off, but the issue was, they were found out. I don't expect any better behaviour from Labour, they have been in cahoots with both business and the unions. Vote for an independent MP or UKIP.

  • rate this

    Comment number 9.



  • Comment number 8.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this

    Comment number 7.

    The 50% rate being abolished will be very nice for someone earning £500,000 a year, £17,500 nicer to be exact in year one and even better, it will be £35,000 nicer every year after that! I wonder how many people in the UK bring home (not earn) £17,500, never mind £35,000?

    But remember folks, "we're all in this together"..............yea, okay Dave, we all believe you.

  • rate this

    Comment number 6.

    Perhaps this is Murdoch retaliating but it is not the critical issue here.

    Patronage and money appears to be at the root of a scandal at the highest level of policy-making.

    Our PM has responded weakly and arrongantly and appears to be content with trying to brush this serious affair under the carpet.

    Not fit and proper for leadership.

    Not the government we want or deserve.

  • rate this

    Comment number 5.

    I think you should make clear that your reporting is based on briefings you are given and that in return for such briefings you are 'obligated' to present what has been suggested to you. In this case of course it will not be possible for these meetings to remain 'private' but by all means present the case in favour of privacy but please state where this arguement originates from.

  • rate this

    Comment number 4.

    DC must have something to hide, he just must have. There's no way he can't, he's got to have.

    If he won't publish every single detail of his life, including everyone he has ever met, where, when and what the conversation was then he must be hiding something. Don't leave his wife and family out either, they might be trying to influence him.

    Oh, and nice to see Ed jumping in with opportunism

  • rate this

    Comment number 3.

    The biggest part of this story is that this was not a personal friend/donor, but an overseas company trying to buy access AND influence on policy. I'm not interested if a member of the Con Party has dinner with the PM - I AM interested that a wealthy, foreign donor can influence national policy in a private (off the record) meeting. All such meetings should be revealed and, in future, declared.

  • rate this

    Comment number 2.

    Teapot,kettle,black comes to mind here.Neither Murdock or Labour have grounds for making any capital out of this.The time is now ripe for root and branch reform of political funding.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1.

    First Rebecca Brooks, Then Coulson, now payments for the prime ministers ear at lunch. All this brings into question the judgement of Davis Cameron and his advisors.


Page 24 of 24



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.