Has the Daily Star turned its back on the EDL?

The red top pledges to oppose “extremism and fanaticism no matter what quarter it comes from”.

The Daily Star's flirtation with extremist right-wing, if not right-wing, politics appears to be over. Last month Richard Desmond's flagship red top raised concerns that it was preparing to formally endorse the English Defence League after publishing an editorial entitled "Don't Dare Ignore The EDL" with the accompanying splash "English Defence League To Become A Political Party".

Fortunately it now appears the Star editor, Dawn Neesom, described in her Wikipedia biography as a staunch West Ham fan and avid kick boxer, has experienced a conversion on the road to Luton, and will be adopting a more circumspect approach to the group, which has been bringing booze-fuelled chaos to Britain's multi-ethnic communities.

A letter from the Daily Star publishers, Northern & Shell, to Nick Lowles, editor of the anti-extremist magazine Searchlight, pledges: "Our stand has always been and always will be that of strongly opposing extremism and fanaticism no matter what quarter it comes from, whether it be burning poppies or copies of the Koran." It goes on, "We assure Searchlight that the Daily Star will continue to endeavour to be a fair and accurate newspaper serving a true United Kingdom and all its people."

An editorial response from Lowles, who has been campaigning for the Star to distance itself from the EDL, expresses his belief that "the newspaper will not be backing the street gang or any other extremist organisation". He adds: "We welcome this statement and what we understand to be a change in direction. We will remain vigilant to keep the newspaper to its word."

Despite a perception that the Daily Star was morphing into the house magazine of the far right, the truth is the Star stable has adopted a more ambiguous stance to both the EDL and the league's floundering forerunners in the BNP. The Sunday edition of the paper has run a number of hard-hitting exposés of both organisations, and was highly critical of the Prime Minister's recent Munich speech on multiculturalism. Under the headline "David Cameron Boards the EDL Bandwagon" the paper charged: "Bungling David Cameron was last night accused of 'stoking the fires' of race hate just hours before a thuggish far-right march."

There have also been indications that Richard Desmond has himself been concerned about his daily paper's courting of the EDL. The Guardian media commentator Roy Greenslade, who was heavily critical of the Star's favourable editorial, quoted a spokesman for Desmond insisting the proprietor had no prior knowledge of the paper's stance. The Independent also agreed to change its online headline "Has Richard Desmond decided to back the English Defence League?" to "Has the Daily Star decided to back the English Defence League?" following a request for a correction from Desmond.

The Star's decision to break from its balaclava-clad suitors comes at a time when the paper has been facing internal as well as external scrutiny over its reporting of ethnic minorities, especially those in the Muslim community. The whistleblower/disgruntled former employee Richard Peppiatt claimed in a resignation letter to Daily Star management that Islamophobia had become a key weapon in the paper's fight for circulation.

"Muslims are branded 'beardies' or 'fanatics', and black-on-black killings ('Bob-slayings', as I've cringingly heard them called in your newsroom) can be resigned to a handful of words, shoehorned beneath a garish advert," Peppiatt wrote.

In response, the Daily Star issued a statement which claimed: "Regarding the allegations over the paper's coverage of Islam, he [Peppiatt] was only ever involved in a very minor way with such articles, and never voiced either privately or officially any disquiet over the tone of the coverage. For the record, the Daily Star editorial policy does not hold any negativity towards Islam and the paper has never, and does not endorse, the EDL."

Whatever the truth of the Peppiatt allegations, the withdrawal, or non-extension, of the Daily Star's support will be a seen as a blow to the organisation at a time when it is struggling to manage internal tensions over its direction. Alan Lake, the EDL's shadowy millionaire financier, is keen to channel his progeny towards the political mainstream, and has been attempting to build connections with the European and international right, including fringe elements of the US Tea Party movement.

In contrast, Tommy Robinson, the EDL's self-styled "General", is said to want to remain true to the movement's "grass-roots" strategy of street-level demonstrations and confrontation, even though effective policing and community organisation are reducing the opportunities for disorder so beloved of many of its members.

The "tits, bums, QPR and roll your own fags" agenda pursued by the Daily Star's inaugural editor, Derek Jameson, is not to everyone's taste. But the capture of a national newspaper endorsement, from whatever source, would have been an important feather in the hoodies of the EDL. Dawn Neesom and Richard Desmond's change of heart, however belated, is to be welcomed.

Say oooh, ah, Daily Star . . .

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.