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

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

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