McCluskey ignores the deficit that Osborne will leave

Nowhere does the Unite general secretary acknowledge the £79bn deficit that Labour would inherit.

"Union chief attacks Labour leader" is rarely a headline worthy of much attention but then Len McCluskey is not any trade union leader. As general secretary of Unite he leads the country's biggest trade union and Labour's biggest donor, responsible for a quarter of all donations to the party. And, lest we forget, had it not been for McCluskey's union, among others, David Miliband, not Ed, would now be wearing the crown.

But the younger Miliband has little to thank McCluskey for this morning. His article in today's Guardian is a full-frontal attack on the Labour leader and Ed Balls for their "embrace of austerity" and the government's public sector pay squeeze. Anti-cuts protesters, he writes, have been left "disenfranchised" by a Blairite "policy coup" that threatens Miliband's leadership.

To which Balls and Miliband should reply, we have changed our mind because the facts have changed. The failure of George Osborne's plan means that, based on Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts, the next government will inherit a deficit of £79bn. As growth continues to fall below target, this figure will continue to soar upwards. Yet nowhere in his piece does McCluskey acknowledge this new fiscal reality. Ball's statement that the "starting point" for Labour (note the wriggle room) is "we're going to have to keep all these cuts" is simply an acknowledgement that the country has a lot less money than it thought. Labour cannot credibly pledge not only to avoid further cuts if elected in 2015 (Osborne would stretch his into 2017) but to reverse those that have already been made.

Contrary to what McCluskey writes, the shadow chancellor has not embraced "deficit reduction through spending cuts". He continues to oppose both the speed and the scale of the coalition's cuts, warning that they mean a reduced level of growth, higher unemployment and, consequently, a higher deficit. Osborne is now set to borrow more than Alistair Darling would have. But we cannot rerun the 2010 general election. The Chancellor plainly has no intention of changing course and the country will suffer for it. Balls's intervention was, to coin a phrase, an attempt to look forward, not back. Whether this will benefit Labour politically is an open question. At a time when some forecasters say the country is already in recession, the party's shift of emphasis risks appearing irrelevant at best and eccentric at worst. Labour's new position (cuts are harming the economy, so we won't be able to reverse them) cannot easily be sold on the doorstep. Moreover, McCluskey is right to assail Balls for buying "into the hoary old fallacy that increasing the wages of the low-paid risks unemployment." Keynes's rottweiler has endorsed a pay policy that will further squeeze demand out of the economy.

Balls's wager is that while Labour may lose short-term popularity it will win long-term credibility. His model appears to be the 1997 spending freeze (devised by the man himself) that reassured nagging doubts about "spendthrift" Labour. We will never know how the party would have fared had it simply played the "too far, too fast" tune. McCluskey's fears, then, are not ungrounded. But until he shows some awareness of the dramatically altered economic reality, he will not be an honest participant in this debate.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

What it’s like to fall victim to the Mail Online’s aggregation machine

I recently travelled to Iraq at my own expense to write a piece about war graves. Within five hours of the story's publication by the Times, huge chunks of it appeared on Mail Online – under someone else's byline.

I recently returned from a trip to Iraq, and wrote an article for the Times on the desecration of Commonwealth war cemeteries in the southern cities of Amara and Basra. It appeared in Monday’s paper, and began:

“‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the engraving reads, but the words ring hollow. The stone on which they appear lies shattered in a foreign field that should forever be England, but patently is anything but.”

By 6am, less than five hours after the Times put it online, a remarkably similar story had appeared on Mail Online, the world’s biggest and most successful English-language website with 200 million unique visitors a month.

It began: “Despite being etched with the immortal line: ‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the truth could not be further from the sentiment for the memorials in the Commonwealth War Cemetery in Amara.”

The article ran under the byline of someone called Euan McLelland, who describes himself on his personal website as a “driven, proactive and reliable multi-media reporter”. Alas, he was not driven or proactive enough to visit Iraq himself. His story was lifted straight from mine – every fact, every quote, every observation, the only significant difference being the introduction of a few errors and some lyrical flights of fancy. McLelland’s journalistic research extended to discovering the name of a Victoria Cross winner buried in one of the cemeteries – then getting it wrong.

Within the trade, lifting quotes and other material without proper acknowledgement is called plagiarism. In the wider world it is called theft. As a freelance, I had financed my trip to Iraq (though I should eventually recoup my expenses of nearly £1,000). I had arranged a guide and transport. I had expended considerable time and energy on the travel and research, and had taken the risk of visiting a notoriously unstable country. Yet McLelland had seen fit not only to filch my work but put his name on it. In doing so, he also precluded the possibility of me selling the story to any other publication.

I’m being unfair, of course. McLelland is merely a lackey. His job is to repackage and regurgitate. He has no time to do what proper journalists do – investigate, find things out, speak to real people, check facts. As the astute media blog SubScribe pointed out, on the same day that he “exposed” the state of Iraq’s cemeteries McLelland also wrote stories about the junior doctors’ strike, British special forces fighting Isis in Iraq, a policeman’s killer enjoying supervised outings from prison, methods of teaching children to read, the development of odourless garlic, a book by Lee Rigby’s mother serialised in the rival Mirror, and Michael Gove’s warning of an immigration free-for-all if Britain brexits. That’s some workload.

Last year James King published a damning insider’s account of working at Mail Online for the website Gawker. “I saw basic journalism standards and ethics casually and routinely ignored. I saw other publications’ work lifted wholesale. I watched editors...publish information they knew to be inaccurate,” he wrote. “The Mail’s editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material, and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication.”

Mail Online strenuously denied the charges, but there is plenty of evidence to support them. In 2014, for example, it was famously forced to apologise to George Clooney for publishing what the actor described as a bogus, baseless and “premeditated lie” about his future mother-in-law opposing his marriage to Amal Alamuddin.

That same year it had to pay a “sizeable amount” to a freelance journalist named Jonathan Krohn for stealing his exclusive account in the Sunday Telegraph of being besieged with the Yazidis on northern Iraq’s Mount Sinjar by Islamic State fighters. It had to compensate another freelance, Ali Kefford, for ripping off her exclusive interview for the Mirror with Sarah West, the first female commander of a Navy warship.

Incensed by the theft of my own story, I emailed Martin Clarke, publisher of Mail Online, attaching an invoice for several hundred pounds. I heard nothing, so emailed McLelland to ask if he intended to pay me for using my work. Again I heard nothing, so I posted both emails on Facebook and Twitter.

I was astonished by the support I received, especially from my fellow journalists, some of them household names, including several victims of Mail Online themselves. They clearly loathed the website and the way it tarnishes and debases their profession. “Keep pestering and shaming them till you get a response,” one urged me. Take legal action, others exhorted me. “Could a groundswell from working journalists develop into a concerted effort to stop the theft?” SubScribe asked hopefully.

Then, as pressure from social media grew, Mail Online capitulated. Scott Langham, its deputy managing editor, emailed to say it would pay my invoice – but “with no admission of liability”. He even asked if it could keep the offending article up online, only with my byline instead of McLelland’s. I declined that generous offer and demanded its removal.

When I announced my little victory on Facebook some journalistic colleagues expressed disappointment, not satisfaction. They had hoped this would be a test case, they said. They wanted Mail Online’s brand of “journalism” exposed for what it is. “I was spoiling for a long war of attrition,” one well-known television correspondent lamented. Instead, they complained, a website widely seen as the model for future online journalism had simply bought off yet another of its victims.