Alex Salmond: News Corp lobbyist?

The Michel emails suggest Salmond acted as News Corp's political champion.

Jeremy Hunt wasn't the only political cheerleader News Corporation enjoyed the services of. The full emails of the company's public affairs director Frederic Michel, now available on the Leveson inquiry website, reveal the extraordinary lengths that Alex Salmond went to to support the BSkyB bid. According to Michel, the Scottish First Minister offered to lobby both Vince Cable and Jeremy Hunt on the company's behalf and to brief the Scottish press on the "economic importance" of News Corp for the country. All of which goes some way to explaining Rupert Murdoch's recent description of Salmond as the "most brilliant politician in U.K.".

Below are the full, damning emails.

On 1 November 2010, Michel told James Murdoch:

Alex Salmond is very keen to put these issues across to Cable and have a call with you tomorrow or Wednesday. His team will also brief the Scottish press on the economic importance of News Corp for Scotland.

Following a conversation with Rupert Harrison, George Osborne's special adviser, on 9 November 2010, Michel reported to Murdoch:

He (Harrison) was very much taken by our commitment to Scotland and Alex Salmond's desire to support us. He thought it was a strong ally to put forward, very contrarian/unexpected.

On 11 February 2011, Michel told James Murdoch:

I met with Alex Salmond's adviser today. He will call Hunt whenever we need him to.

Finally, on 2 March 2011, Michel wrote to Murdoch:

Alex Salmond called. He had a very good dinner with the Editor of Sun in Scotland yesterday.

The Sun is now keen to back the SNP at the election. The Editor will make his pitch to the Editorial team tomorrow. 

On the Sky bid, he will make himself available to support the debate if consultation is launched (emphasis mine).

News Corporation head Rupert Murdoch with Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond. Photograph: Getty Images.

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.