The Murdoch-Cameron deal

What Murdoch can expect in return for the Sun's support of the Tory leader

How did David Cameron, a man until recently regarded by Rupert Murdoch as a "lightweight", convince one of the media mogul's most cherished papers, the Sun, to support him?

Initially the News Corporation head, fond of the days when Margaret Thatcher's cabinet contained "more old Estonians than Old Etonians", was highly sceptical of the upper-class Cameron.

Appearing on The Charlie Rose Show in July 2006, Murdoch was asked, "What do you think of David Cameron?" His contemptuous reply was: "Not much." Conversely, he was highly impressed by Gordon Brown and admired his intellect, his work ethic and his Presbyterian conscience.

As Michael Wolff, the author of the Murdoch biography The Man Who Owns the News, noted during this period: "Murdoch continues to like Gordon Brown -- he might be the Labour Prime Minister, but he's conservative, particularly in the Murdoch sense of no pretence, no frills."

So what changed? The most obvious answer is Cameron's poll ratings. Murdoch may present himself as a contrarian who relishes every opportunity to defy "the establishment" but politically he has always followed rather than led public opinion.

Then there's the BBC. As I first noted in the aftermath of James Murdoch's broadside against the corporation, the family has become increasingly obsessed with curtailing the BBC's "chilling" expansion.

Under Cameron's leadership, the Tories have already demonstrated their willingness to challenge the successive licence-fee increases the world's largest broadcaster has enjoyed under Labour. In May, parliament voted on a Tory proposal to freeze the licence fee, with Cameron arguing that during the recession the BBC needed to do "more with less".

The proposal made little political impact and was easily defeated by 334-156 votes, but it set an important precedent.

Even more significant is Cameron's pledge to abolish Ofcom. On 26 July the media regulator announced that it would force the Murdoch-owned BSkyB to cap the cost of its premium sports and film channels, potentially making them available on new platforms such as BT Vision. Sky retaliated by promising to use all legal avenues available to challenge the ruling.

Just ten days later, in a surprise speech, Cameron promised that, under a Conservative government, "Ofcom as we know it will cease to exist".

Finally, it is clear that it was James Murdoch, who oversees the European and Asian corners of his father's empire, who pushed hardest for the declaration in favour of Cameron. Lord Mandelson may not have been far from the truth when he claimed last night that Murdoch Sr "was a little surprised and disappointed" by the decision.

As Wolff wrote in 2008: "[T]hen there is James's infatuation with David Cameron, the Tories' cool, glam former PR guy, whom Murdoch knew he was, however begrudgingly, going to have to accept."

It's no coincidence that the Sun's endorsement of Cameron was notably more qualified than its declaration for Blair. The Conservative leader is likely to have to offer further guarantees to keep the paper onside.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Leon Neal/ Getty
Show Hide image

“Brexit is based on racism”: Who is protesting outside the Supreme Court and what are they fighting for?

Movement for Justice is challenging the racist potential of Brexit, as the government appeals the High Court's Article 50 decision.

Protestors from the campaign group Movement for Justice are demonstrating outside the Supreme Court for the second day running. They are against the government triggering Article 50 without asking MPs, and are protesting against the Brexit vote in general. They plan to remain outside the Supreme Court for the duration of the case, as the government appeals the recent High Court ruling in favour of Parliament.

Their banners call to "STOP the scapgoating of immigrants", to "Build the movement against austerity & FOR equality", and to "Stop Brexit Fight Racism".

The group led Saturday’s march at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Detention Centre, where a crowd of over 2,000 people stood against the government’s immigration policy, and the management of the centre, which has long been under fire for claims of abuse against detainees.  

Movement for Justice, and its 50 campaigners, were in the company yesterday of people from all walks of pro and anti-Brexit life, including the hangers-on from former Ukip leader Nigel Farage’s postponed march on the Supreme Court.

Antonia Bright, one of the campaign’s lead figures, says: “It is in the interests of our fight for freedom of movement that the Supreme Court blocks May’s attempt to rush through an anti-immigrant deal.”

This sentiment is echoed by campaigners on both sides of the referendum, many of whom believe that Parliament should be involved.

Alongside refuting the royal prerogative, the group criticises the Brexit vote in general. Bright says:

“The bottom line is that Brexit represents an anti-immigrant movement. It is based on racism, so regardless of how people intended their vote, it will still be a decision that is an attack on immigration.”

A crucial concern for the group is that the terms of the agreement will set a precedent for anti-immigrant policies that will heighten aggression against ethnic communities.

This concern isn’t entirely unfounded. The National Police Chief’s Council recorded a 58 per cent spike in hate crimes in the week following the referendum. Over the course of the month, this averaged as a 41 per cent increase, compared with the same time the following year.

The subtext of Bright's statement is not only a dissatisfaction with the result of the EU referendum, but the process of the vote itself. It voices a concern heard many times since the vote that a referendum is far too simple a process for a desicion of such momentous consequences. She also draws on the gaping hole between people's voting intentions and the policy that is implemented.

This is particularly troubling when the competitive nature of multilateral bargaining allows the government to keep its cards close to its chest on critical issues such as freedom of movement and trade agreements. Bright insists that this, “is not a democratic process at all”.

“We want to positively say that there does need to be scrutiny and transparency, and an opening up of this question, not just a rushing through on the royal prerogative,” she adds. “There needs to be transparency in everything that is being negotiated and discussed in the public realm.”

For campaigners, the use of royal prerogative is a sinister symbol of the government deciding whatever it likes, without consulting Parliament or voters, during the future Brexit negotiations. A ruling in the Supreme Court in favour of a parliamentary vote would present a small but important reassurance against these fears.