A witch-hunt against the Sun?

Why those at the tabloid should be more concerned with News International than the police.

The Sun's Trevor Kavanagh has described the weekend's arrests of journalists and others as a "witch-hunt". Some, who should know better, are nodding along to this. It is, of course, nothing of the kind, as the sensible Brian Cathcart has calmly explained. However, what is actually happening is a serious matter for those at the Sun and perhaps elsewhere at News International.

But first, a few words about "witch-hunts". It is a phrase often invoked when someone is faced with the sort of sustained and deliberate scrutiny required to overcome obstructions and evasions. In the case of the Sun it is because police officers, operating under the law, have arrested suspects as part of their enquiries. Those suspects are entitled to due process and could well not be charged. They are entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This is not a "witch-hunt". It is just the normal approach of the police to those suspected of crimes.

The Metropolitan Police are doing something that those who work for a powerful media entity do not like. Instead of the cosy relationship where editors routinely had lunches with senior police officers and their press advisers, and where various reporters allegedly saw nothing wrong in paying public officials for information, there is the short sharp shock of practical law-enforcement. Journalists have turned out not to be above the law: all those tabloid demands for "law and order" were not only for other people.

Nonetheless, there is something deeply uncomfortable about journalists being arrested by the police. But there was also something uncomfortable about members of parliament being taken to police stations. In the latter case, this rightly did not stop democratically elected politicians being arrested, charged, and then convicted for criminal offences over fraudulent expense claims. The enforcement of the Rule of Law in respect of parliamentarians did not mean the undermining of a liberal and democratic society, just as now holding the media to account will not mean either anarchy or repression. In both cases, the fearless and impartial enforcement of the law of the land is a sign of a healthy democracy, not an alarming symptom of political decline.

However, those at the Sun are right to be nervous. News International, through its Management and Standards Committee, is now being ruthless and commercial in dealing with the alleged wrongdoings of all its British titles. In doing so, News International is showing no more sentimental attachment to its reporters than it did thirty years ago to its print workers. It is akin to when a despot withdraws his favour from certain underlings: they are not "thrown to the wolves" but they suddenly are treated like any other subjects, and they then have to account for their actions when they thought they could get away with it.

No sensible person wants another newspaper to close. Indeed, the only people who seem to think closing down newspapers is a solution to the current problems appear to be the senior management of News International. The demand is for better journalism, not for no journalism. There is -- and was -- simply no need for vibrant, mass-market newspapers to use the "dark arts" of blagging or hacking, or to make corrupt payments to public officials. Wise-heads in the industry realise this, and there is likely to be a firm distinction between pre- and post-Leveson journalism.

But in the meantime, whilst it may well seem a good tactic to cry "witch-hunt", all that many can hear are the tabloids crying wolf.

 

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Getty Images
Show Hide image

Angela Eagle is set to challenge Jeremy Corbyn. But many still hope for Tom Watson

Labour's deputy leader is the potential candidate most feared by Corbyn's supporters. 

The vote of no confidence came. But Jeremy Corbyn didn't go. As anticipated, the Labour leader declared just 20 minutes after his defeat that he would not "betray" his supporters "by resigning". Having never enjoyed the confidence of MPs to begin with (as few as 14 voted for him), he is unfazed by losing it now. His allies are confident that he retains the support of a majority of Labour's selectorate. 

The likeliest resolution is a leadership contest in which Corbyn is challenged by a single "unity candidate": Angela Eagle (as I predicted on Monday). Labour's former shadow first secretary of state, who impressed when deputising for the leader at PMQs, has been ready to stand for months. MPs speak of her enjoying support "across the span" of the Parliamentary Labour Party, from the "soft left" to "moderates" to "Blairites". A source told me: "It is no surprise that colleagues are turning to her. She is very much considered a tough, Angela Merkel-type figure who can lead the party through this difficult period." There is no sign that the backing of her own constituency party (Wallasey) for Corbyn will deter her. 

Other potential candidates such as Dan Jarvis, Yvette Cooper and Chuka Umunna have relinquished their ambitions for now. But two names still recur: Owen Smith and Tom Watson. Smith, who first revealed his leadership ambitions to me in an interview earlier this year, would run as a competent, soft left alternative to Corbyn. But it is Watson who the Labour leader's supporters fear most. He comfortably won last year's deputy leadership election and is renowned for his organisational abilities and trade union links. For these reasons, many regard him as a more formidable opponent than Eagle. "Fourth in the deputy leadership election to first in the leadership election in 10 months is a big challenge," an MP noted. 

But as deputy leader, Watson has long regarded it as his duty to preserve party unity above all. A challenge to Corbyn, pitting him against most current members (including a significant number who voted for him), unavoidably conflicts with this role. For this reason, Watson's supporters hope that a combination of pressure from MPs, some unions (who are expected to meet the Labour leader today), council leaders and members (who are "absorbing" the no confidence vote) could yet persuade the leader to stand down. Under this scenario, Watson would automatically become interim leader, either steering Labour through an early general election or presiding over a multi-candidate leadership contest. 

Should Corbyn refuse to resign today (as most of the rebels expect), some still hope that Watson could be persuaded to run. But assuming the Labour leader automatically makes the ballot paper (a matter of legal dispute), a contest between himself and Eagle is likely to ensue. Having won the backing of just 40 of Labour's 229 MPs in the confidence vote, Corbyn would struggle to achieve the 50 MP/MEP nominations required to qualify. 

A final, little-discussed scenario involves Corbyn agreeing to step down in return for a guarantee that John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor and his closest ally, would make the ballot. This would ensure the far-left representation in the contest and reduce the possibility of a split. But it would run the risk of merely replicating the present schism in a new form.  

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.