Shhh… Pray silence for Paul Uppal's views on phone hacking

OK, don't expect much: it's simply more toadying to our compromised Prime Minister.

There are very few places in the world where the leader of the Executive would subject himself to two hours of questioning. One thing that shames our democracy, though, is that there are elements in the House that seem to want to make political capital out of the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone.

Quite frankly, a PM who employs someone at the heart of illegality, who instructs his advisors not to let him hear any evidence, and who consorts with amoral power to the extent that he does, should expect 'politicised' criticism. He's proved himself unworthy of authority and it's Labour's job to make this point.


As has Uppal: to reduce the affair to the murdered girl's phone is a cynical attempt to claim a moral high ground which he does not deserve, especially as he hasn't uttered a single word of criticism previously, either of the newspapers or the political-media nexus.


For Cameron to take the other part in this duet:

I simply wanted to make the point to my hon. Friend that he is right. At the heart of all this, as we have all these debates and discussions, we must bear in mind the victims of phone hacking, chief among whom are the family of Milly Dowler.

is the most revolting, cynical humbug. They should both be ashamed.


In other news, I've received Paul Uppal's Summer Newsletter. As you'd expect, it's lots of pictures of the MP posing with volunteer groups, and highlights of his parliamentary activity. Needless to say, none of his self-serving tax-cutting, aid-the-starving-property-developers questions find space. What a shame.


Update: The Rise and Rise of Tim Lovejoy spotted a detail I missed:

Once again I'm left reading something from Paul Uppal and thinking "Dude? Really?" before getting pissed off with him. Happily, I'm not the only one, as Margaret Curran, the Labour MP for Glasgow East wasn't too impressed either:

'May I ask the Prime Minister, in all sincerity, to dissociate himself from the comment of Paul Uppal?

Naturally, Dave duly dodged that question.

He did more than that: he implied that Uppal was right. 

I do not question the hon. Lady’s motives, but the point about this place is that people can watch what has been said, and they can form their own judgments.

Which just makes it harder to work out which of the two Tories is more despicable.