Challenges for the new Sun editor

What's in Dominic Mohan's in-tray

As had been widely anticipated, News International today named Dominic Mohan as the new editor of the Sun. Mohan, currently the paper's deputy editor, will replace Rebekah Brooks (formerly Wade), who will shortly take up her new position as chief executive of News International.

One of the central challenges for Mohan will be to establish the paper's political line ahead of the general election. As I've previously noted, the Sun is now almost certain to defect to the Conservatives at the next election. The paper's support for the Tories in the European election and their endorsement of Boris Johnson last year suggests we won't be seeing red smoke emerge from the Sun's Wapping HQ again.

Mohan is not known as a political animal but if Rupert Murdoch (and it will be him) gives the nod to David Cameron, it may be up to Mohan to determine whether the Sun attacks Cameron from the right (on immigration, tax and crime) or evolves into a more liberal creature.

On the business level, now Murdoch has declared that he intends to charge for all his news websites by next summer, Mohan will be responsible for providing the celebrity scoops that the News Corp head believes users will pay for.

Murdoch's UK newspaper empire is more dependent than ever on the Sun for profits, with both the Times and the Sunday Times losing millions in advertising revenue.

The Sun's circulation decline (down 0.4 per cent year-on-year) has been mild compared to some, but this has been achieved in part through an aggressive price war (in many areas the paper retails at just 20p) that may prove unsustainable.

Mohan can take comfort in the support of a proprietor who is committed to rescuing the printed press for the 21st century and who is redirecting resources to his core assets.

The imminent closure of the London Paper and the sale of the neoconservative magazine the Weekly Standard demonstrate that Murdoch is prepared to act ruthlessly to protect his most renowned titles. It will now be up to Mohan to prove that such faith has been well placed.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May's U-Turn may have just traded one problem for another

The problems of the policy have been moved, not eradicated. 

That didn’t take long. Theresa May has U-Turned on her plan to make people personally liable for the costs of social care until they have just £100,000 worth of assets, including property, left.

As the average home is valued at £317,000, in practice, that meant that most property owners would have to remortgage their house in order to pay for the cost of their social care. That upwards of 75 per cent of baby boomers – the largest group in the UK, both in terms of raw numbers and their higher tendency to vote – own their homes made the proposal politically toxic.

(The political pain is more acute when you remember that, on the whole, the properties owned by the elderly are worth more than those owned by the young. Why? Because most first-time buyers purchase small flats and most retirees are in large family homes.)

The proposal would have meant that while people who in old age fall foul of long-term degenerative illnesses like Alzheimers would in practice face an inheritance tax threshold of £100,000, people who die suddenly would face one of £1m, ten times higher than that paid by those requiring longer-term care. Small wonder the proposal was swiftly dubbed a “dementia tax”.

The Conservatives are now proposing “an absolute limit on the amount people have to pay for their care costs”. The actual amount is TBD, and will be the subject of a consultation should the Tories win the election. May went further, laying out the following guarantees:

“We are proposing the right funding model for social care.  We will make sure nobody has to sell their family home to pay for care.  We will make sure there’s an absolute limit on what people need to pay. And you will never have to go below £100,000 of your savings, so you will always have something to pass on to your family.”

There are a couple of problems here. The proposed policy already had a cap of sorts –on the amount you were allowed to have left over from meeting your own care costs, ie, under £100,000. Although the system – effectively an inheritance tax by lottery – displeased practically everyone and spooked elderly voters, it was at least progressive, in that the lottery was paid by people with assets above £100,000.

Under the new proposal, the lottery remains in place – if you die quickly or don’t require expensive social care, you get to keep all your assets, large or small – but the losers are the poorest pensioners. (Put simply, if there is a cap on costs at £25,000, then people with assets below that in value will see them swallowed up, but people with assets above that value will have them protected.)  That is compounded still further if home-owners are allowed to retain their homes.

So it’s still a dementia tax – it’s just a regressive dementia tax.

It also means that the Conservatives have traded going into the election’s final weeks facing accusations that they will force people to sell their own homes for going into the election facing questions over what a “reasonable” cap on care costs is, and you don’t have to be very imaginative to see how that could cause them trouble.

They’ve U-Turned alright, but they may simply have swerved away from one collision into another.  

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

0800 7318496