The Coulson severance story: Day 3
Does it raise questions about the party “due dilligence”?
The story over the severance package to Andy Coulson and the fact that neither Dave nor the Conserative party appears to have questioned the ex-NOTW editor about it continues to get a fair bit of coverage this morning.
As Christopher Hope in the Telegraph reports what happened raises question about “due diligence†carried out by the party – a situation that hasn’t been helped by comments by two former News International editors, Andrew Neil formerly of the Sunday Times and David Yelland ex-editor of the Sun, that they received nothing after leaving the company.
Jason Groves in the Mail focuses on whether the payments were a breach of election law while the former Blair media advisor, Lance Price, is critical of Cameron in the Indy .
He writes: “Party leaders, far less prime ministers, do not need to know the ins and outs of every detail before they make a decision. They couldn’t function if they did. What they do need is an instinctive grasp of the big questions that must be asked and answered before they give their judgement. In the case of Andy Coulson it was pretty obvious. “Is there anything in your past or present relationship with News International that could embarrass either me or my party?”
If Coulson had answered that one with an unambiguous “yes” he would have saved everybody, including himself, a lot of trouble.”
Two of the ten “must read” articles on PoliticsHome this morning relate to the Coulson severance and I am not so sure that the many PBers on the thread yesterday morning who concluded that the story “didn’t have legs” were correct.