New Statesman magazine circulation rises

Latest ABC figures show circulation of nearly 25,000.

The latest Audit Bureau of Circulation figures, released today, show that the circulation of the print edition of the  New Statesman rose by more than 1,000 in 2012 to 24,910. The ABC figures do not include the Kindle or digital editions, which have an additional 2,000 subscribers. 

New Statesman will be 100 years old on 12 April. It was founded by Beatrice and Sidney Webb, with £5,000 of donations from friends, including £1,000 from George Bernard Shaw. Beatrice Webb was pessimistic about the prospects of her weekly review of politics and the arts. “If I were forced to wager, I should not back our success,” she wrote in a diary entry. 

 

One hundred years later, because of the success of its website (Newstatesman.com has just announced record traffic growth, with more than 1.15 million unique monthly users) and its availability on digital formats such as Kindle, the New Statesman is reaching more readers than ever. Even the circulation of the paper magazine is rising again, without marketing, at a time when so many print titles are struggling. The business of the business is improving and, after a successful 2012, the New Statesman is now broadly breaking even.

The circulation of the New Statesman has been broadly stable, with the odd fluctuation up or down, since the early 1990s - over a period when printed publications generally have seen a dramatic decline. As it approaches its centenary, with the website so buoyant, the magazine as strong as it has been for many years and winning awards, and a new app in the pipeline, the New Statesman is set fair. 

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Donald Trump's healthcare failure could be to his advantage

The appearance of weakness is less electorally damaging than actually removing healthcare from millions of people.

Good morning. Is it all over for Donald Trump? His approval ratings have cratered to below 40%. Now his attempt to dismantle Barack Obama's healthcare reforms have hit serious resistance from within the Republican Party, adding to the failures and retreats of his early days in office.

The problem for the GOP is that their opposition to Obamacare had more to do with the word "Obama" than the word "care". The previous President opted for a right-wing solution to the problem of the uninsured in a doomed attempt to secure bipartisan support for his healthcare reform. The politician with the biggest impact on the structures of the Affordable Care Act is Mitt Romney.

But now that the Republicans control all three branches of government they are left in a situation where they have no alternative to Obamacare that wouldn't either a) shred conservative orthodoxies on healthcare or b) create numerous and angry losers in their constituencies. The difficulties for Trump's proposal is that it does a bit of both.

Now the man who ran on his ability to cut a deal has been forced to make a take it or leave plea to Republicans in the House of Representatives: vote for this plan or say goodbye to any chance of repealing Obamacare.

But that's probably good news for Trump. The appearance of weakness and failure is less electorally damaging than actually succeeding in removing healthcare from millions of people, including people who voted for Trump.

Trump won his first term because his own negatives as a candidate weren't quite enough to drag him down on a night when he underperformed Republican candidates across the country. The historical trends all make it hard for a first-term incumbent to lose. So far, Trump's administration is largely being frustrated by the Republican establishment though he is succeeding in leveraging the Presidency for the benefit of his business empire.

But it may be that in the failure to get anything done he succeeds in once again riding Republican coattails to victory in 2020.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.