Mandelson and Murdoch: it's war!

The Business Secretary's most strident attack yet

Lord Mandelson has launched his most polemical attack yet on the Murdoch empire, warning explicitly of its plan to import "Fox-style news" to Britain.

What's fascinating about Mandelson's latest intervention is how strident his language is. Normally cabinet ministers preface any criticism of a media organisation (particularly one as large as News Corp) with some token praise for its "contribution to national life", or declare that "regretfully, on this issue, we disagree".

But here, not in a BBC studio, but in the House of Lords, is a double-barrelled assault on News Corp and all it stands for:

They believe that profit alone should drive the gathering and circulation of news rather than allowing a role for what they call "state-sponsored journalism". The government and this bill reject this world-view, and I hope that the whole House, including the Conservatives, will make clear today that they think likewise, and that they will support Ofcom -- including its efforts to ensure consumers are getting a fair deal in the pay-TV market.

It's worth contrasting Mandelson's words with those of Gordon Brown who, amid the vulgar campaign against him by the Sun, said of Murdoch: "I have got a great deal of respect for what he has done, and I hope that he has some respect for me."

Despite this, the Prime Minister almost certainly sanctioned Mandelson's assault on Murdoch. That means we're witnessing something like a good cop/bad cop routine.

That said, Mandelson's speech was less of an assault on Murdoch Sr than it was an attack on his son and heir apparent, James Murdoch. The extract I cited was an explicit rebuttal of the last line of Murdoch Jr's MacTaggart Lecture, which declared that "the only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit".

The response from James, the Murdoch family's own polemicist, should be worth waiting for.


Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Carl Court/Getty
Show Hide image

To stop Jeremy Corbyn, I am giving my second preference to Andy Burnham

The big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Voting is now underway in the Labour leadership election. There can be no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is the frontrunner, but the race isn't over yet.

I know from conversations across the country that many voters still haven't made up their mind.

Some are drawn to Jeremy's promises of a new Jerusalem and endless spending, but worried that these endless promises, with no credibility, will only serve to lose us the next general election.

Others are certain that a Jeremy victory is really a win for Cameron and Osborne, but don't know who is the best alternative to vote for.

I am supporting Liz Kendall and will give her my first preference. But polling data is brutally clear: the big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Andy can win. He can draw together support from across the party, motivated by his history of loyalty to the Labour movement, his passionate appeal for unity in fighting the Tories, and the findings of every poll of the general public in this campaign that he is best placed candidate to win the next general election.

Yvette, in contrast, would lose to Jeremy Corbyn and lose heavily. Evidence from data collected by all the campaigns – except (apparently) Yvette's own – shows this. All publicly available polling shows the same. If Andy drops out of the race, a large part of the broad coalition he attracts will vote for Jeremy. If Yvette is knocked out, her support firmly swings behind Andy.

We will all have our views about the different candidates, but the real choice for our country is between a Labour government and the ongoing rightwing agenda of the Tories.

I am in politics to make a real difference to the lives of my constituents. We are all in the Labour movement to get behind the beliefs that unite all in our party.

In the crucial choice we are making right now, I have no doubt that a vote for Jeremy would be the wrong choice – throwing away the next election, and with it hope for the next decade.

A vote for Yvette gets the same result – her defeat by Jeremy, and Jeremy's defeat to Cameron and Osborne.

In the crucial choice between Yvette and Andy, Andy will get my second preference so we can have the best hope of keeping the fight for our party alive, and the best hope for the future of our country too.

Tom Blenkinsop is the Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland