Marr’s hypocrisy is exposed

The BBC presenter probed into Gordon Brown’s private life while concealing his own.

Andrew Marr today admitted what anyone with access to an internet connection has known for years: that he obtained a superinjunction in 2008 to prevent the press reporting on his extramarital affair. Yet until 2009, when Private Eye launched a successful challenge, the mainstream media were banned from revealing even the existence of the injunction.

As the Eye reported at the time:

So it was last year when Andrew Marr won an injunction to stop the media revealing "private information" about him – and to stop them revealing that he'd stopped them. Marr himself was on record arguing against a judge-made privacy law and calling for a public debate on the subject. Any such debate should include some reference to the effect of superinjunctions; yet Marr's, like many others these days, was so draconian that one couldn't mention its existence. Nor were we allowed to know on what grounds it had been given. After a long struggle by Lord Gnome's lawyers, the order was varied so that we could at least say that he'd obtained it, while not repeating the story he wished to suppress.

The only reason Marr has now gone public in the Daily Mail (thus placating one of his fiercest critics) is to head off a challenge by Private Eye to the ordinary injunction. Unsurprisingly, the Eye editor, Ian Hislop, didn't pull his punches on this morning's Today programme, attacking the injunction as "pretty rank" and "hypocritical".

Hislop was referring to the BBC presenter's apparent opposition to judge-made privacy law. But, as Stephen Tall argues, Marr's greatest offence was his decision to give voice to internet smears and ask Gordon Brown whether he was using "prescription painkillers and pills". Marr's attempt to probe into Brown's private life, while using the courts to protect his own, was neither morally nor professionally acceptable.

He may now argue, conveniently enough, that superinjunctions are "out of control". The question remains, however: if an exception is made for one, why not an exception for all?

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problem with Theresa May's Brexit message is that isn't true

By refusing to level with the public, May is storing up Blair levels of disillusionment for the future.

You can get an idea of how low-wattage the election is so far from the amount of attention being paid to Boris Johnson, who has returned to the scene, not to talk about the ongoing tensions between the United States and North Korea, but to call Jeremy Corbyn a "mutton-headed mugwump" in a column for the Sun

It's the classic Johnson gambit - a colourful way of appearing to be off-message while reinforcing the central message of the Conservative campaign: that this is an election about Brexit, and that the bigger the majority, the greater the chances that Britain will get a good Brexit deal.

It has the added benefit of punching Labour's biggest bruise: the thumping lead that Theresa May enjoys over Jeremy Corbyn as Britain's preferred Prime Minister. IpsosMori, Britain's oldest pollster, have a poll that sums up the scale of May's advantage: she's currently the most popular PM we've had since IpsosMori started polling: more popular than even than Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair at the peak of their powers. "Poll: May most popular leader in FORTY years" is the Metro's splash. And all of the evidence suggests that it is working, with the Tory lead extending since the election was called.

There's just one small problem, really: May's message isn't true. EU leaders feel the same way about other people's elections as most people do about other people's pets or children: they'll try to accommodate them, sure. But ultimately, they take a distant back seat to their own. There is not a Brexit dividend to be unlocked simply through getting a bigger Conservative majority. Whether May's majority is one, ten or 100, she will face the same trade-offs and the same partners with the same incentives.

There is a bit of excitement this morning about the fact that the Times/YouGov tracker shows that more people (45%) say that Brexit is not working than say it is working (42%). The truth is that the margin of error in all polls is plus or minus three, so that shouldn't be seen as anything more than noise. Every other poll and focus group shows that the bulk of people still have sky-high expectations of Britain's Brexit deal.

Brexit may be a success, but it will involve concessions to our partners in the EU and won't be the cure-all that many people who voted to Leave believe that it will. By refusing to level with the public, May is storing up late-period Blair levels of disillusionment for the future. Not that it matters as far as she is concerned; if the polls are to be believed and I see no reason to disbelieve them, she's headed for a win that means the next time the Opposition could even hope to competitive will be 2027 - by which time she'll be 71 and likely contemplating retirement and the speakers' circuit.

But if you look at everything that's happened to Labour since their promise to have "ended boom and bust", her successors at the top of the Tory party will live to regret her lack of candour.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496