Campaign to save the Observer gathers pace

Peep Show's David Mitchell agrees to speak at a public meeting to defend the paper

I'm delighted to see that David Mitchell, one of the stars of the brilliant Peep Show, has agreed to speak at a public meeting later this month to defend the Observer.

As I first reported here, the paper has been threatened with closure by the Guardian Media Group (GMG) as the company attempts to stem losses that stood at nearly £90m this year.

Other options under consideration by the Scott Trust, which owns GMG, are thought to include turning the Observer into a weekly magazine or publishing a vastly slimmed-down version of the paper. An internal review by the trust sometime this autumn is expected to reach a decision on the title's future.

The meeting, which has been called by Press Gazette and the National Union of Journalists, will also hear from the former Observer editor Donald Trelford.

Mitchell, who currently writes a weekly column for the paper, may have a more direct interest than most in its survival, but he is right to celebrate the title as "the only proper liberal Sunday paper".

You may notice that I have managed to get this far without once referring to the Observer as the "world's oldest Sunday newspaper". There is little reason beyond mere sentimentality for its age to be relevant to the debate.

I also have some sympathy with those on the left who argue that the paper deserves little support after its disastrous decision to support the Iraq war. But a tendency to subordinate wider considerations to this conflict has been one of the more unattractive traits of the left in recent years and doesn't deserve to apply in this case.

The Observer was one of the first titles, notably through the columns of Henry Porter, to give considerable space to civil liberties campaigns. It has published some of the finest commentary on the economic crisis by Will Hutton and William Keegan. And it remains one of the few papers to include lengthy analysis of foreign affairs beyond Washington.

I'll be reporting on the public meeting at the Friends Meeting House in King's Cross for this blog and I urge you all to attend.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Picture: ANDRÉ CARRILHO
Show Hide image

Leader: Boris Johnson, a liar and a charlatan

The Foreign Secretary demeans a great office of state with his carelessness and posturing. 

Boris Johnson is a liar, a charlatan and a narcissist. In 1988, when he was a reporter at the Times, he fabricated a quotation from his godfather, an eminent historian, which duly appeared in a news story on the front page. He was sacked. (We might pause here to acknowledge the advantage to a young journalist of having a godfather whose opinions were deemed worthy of appearing in a national newspaper.) Three decades later, his character has not improved.

On 17 September, Mr Johnson wrote a lengthy, hyperbolic article for the Daily Telegraph laying out his “vision” for Brexit – in terms calculated to provoke and undermine the Prime Minister (who was scheduled to give a speech on Brexit in Florence, Italy, as we went to press). Extracts of his “article”, which reads more like a speech, appeared while a terror suspect was on the loose and the country’s threat level was at “critical”, leading the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, to remark: “On the day of a terror attack where Britons were maimed, just hours after the threat level is raised, our only thoughts should be on service.”

Three other facets of this story are noteworthy. First, the article was published alongside other pieces echoing and praising its conclusions, indicating that the Telegraph is now operating as a subsidiary of the Johnson for PM campaign. Second, Theresa May did not respond by immediately sacking her disloyal Foreign Secretary – a measure of how much the botched election campaign has weakened her authority. Finally, it is remarkable that Mr Johnson’s article repeated the most egregious – and most effective – lie of the EU referendum campaign. “Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week,” the Foreign Secretary claimed. “It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS.”

This was the promise of Brexit laid out by the official Vote Leave team: we send £350m to Brussels, and after leaving the EU, that money can be spent on public services. Yet the £350m figure includes the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher – so just under a third of the sum never leaves the country. Also, any plausible deal will involve paying significant amounts to the EU budget in return for continued participation in science and security agreements. To continue to invoke this figure is shameless. That is not a partisan sentiment: the head of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir David Norgrove, denounced Mr Johnson’s “clear misuse of official statistics”.

In the days that followed, the chief strategist of Vote Leave, Dominic Cummings – who, as Simon Heffer writes in this week's New Statesman, is widely suspected of involvement in Mr Johnson’s article – added his voice. Brexit was a “shambles” so far, he claimed, because of the ineptitude of the civil service and the government’s decision to invoke Article 50 before outlining its own detailed demands.

There is a fine Yiddish word to describe this – chutzpah. Mr Johnson, like all the other senior members of Vote Leave in parliament, voted to trigger Article 50 in March. If he and his allies had concerns about this process, the time to speak up was then.

It has been clear for some time that Mr Johnson has no ideological attachment to Brexit. (During the referendum campaign, he wrote articles arguing both the Leave and Remain case, before deciding which one to publish – in the Telegraph, naturally.) However, every day brings fresh evidence that he and his allies are not interested in the tough, detailed negotiations required for such an epic undertaking. They will brush aside any concerns about our readiness for such a huge challenge by insisting that Brexit would be a success if only they were in charge of it.

This is unlikely. Constant reports emerge of how lightly Mr Johnson treats his current role. At a summit aiming to tackle the grotesque humanitarian crisis in Yemen, he is said to have astounded diplomats by joking: “With friends like these, who needs Yemenis?” The Foreign Secretary demeans a great office of state with his carelessness and posturing. By extension, he demeans our politics. 

This article first appeared in the 21 September 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The revenge of the left