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.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.