Why News Corp is like Russia

Murdoch can take the losses.

Russia ultimately won the Second World War thanks to its unique ability to sustain massive losses – and the same could be true for Rupert Murdoch and News Corp.

A huge legal settlement with rebel US shareholders yesterday added yet further to  News Corp’s massive  phone-hacking bill .

They accused the News Corp board of allowing Rupert to “siphon value away from News Corp and its shareholders for the benefit of Murdoch, his family and his friends”.

They also claimed the board had been negligent in the way it dealt with the hacking scandal.

The $139m settlement of that suit adds to the claimed $340m of costs incurred as a result of the hacking scandal to February this year.

Murdoch’s scorched earth policy since the hacking scandal has been as ruthless as it has been effective and something that few other media companies in the world could have afforded to engage in.

Since the July 2011 revelation that the News of the World had hacked the voicemail messages of Milly Dowler Murdoch has closed the biggest selling Sunday newspaper in Britain, the News of the World (sacking more than 200 staff) and has engaged in a forensic audit of his surviving redtop title – The Sun – which is unprecedented in UK corporate history.

The News Corp Management and Standards Committee’s internal purge has seen at least 23 Sun journalists arrested.

Whatever it costs, Murdoch is determined to win out in the long run by retreating as far as he has to and dynamiting his own assets along the way.

Back in July 2011, there was giddy moment for the Murdoch-haters when it looked like The Guardian’s revelations around phone-hacking had dealt him a fatal blow.

His willingness and capacity to absorb financial losses since then in order to salvage his newspaper empire shows that he is determined to win the long war.

Photograph: Getty Images

Dominic Ponsford is editor of Press Gazette

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The Brexit effect: The fall in EU migration spells trouble for the UK

The 84,000 fall in net migration to 248,000 will harm an economy that is dependent on immigration.

The UK may not have left the EU yet but Europeans are already leaving it. New figures from the ONS show that 117,000 EU citizens emigrated in 2016 (up 31,000 from 2015) - the highest level for six years. The exodus was most marked among eastern Europeans, with a fall in immigration from the EU8 countries to 48,000 (down 25,000) and a rise in emigration to 43,000 (up 16,000).

As a result, net migration has fallen to 248,000 (down 84,000), the lowest level since 2014. That's still nearly more than double the Conservatives' target of "tens of thousands a year" (reaffirmed in their election manifesto) but the trend is unmistakable. The number of international students, who Theresa May has refused to exclude from the target (despite cabinet pleas), fell by 32,000 to 136,000. And all this before the government has imposed new controls on free movement.

The causes of the UK's unattractiveness are not hard to discern. The pound’s depreciation (which makes British wages less competitive), the spectre of Brexit (May has refused to guarantee EU citizens the right to remain) and a rise in hate crimes and xenophobia are likely to be the main deterrents. Ministers may publicly welcome the figures but many privately acknowledge that they come at a price. The OBR recently forecast that lower migration would cost £6bn a year by 2020-21. As well as reflecting weaker growth, reduced immigration is likely to reinforce it. Migrants pay far more in tax than they claim in benefits, with a net contribution of £7bn a year. An OBR study found that with zero net migration, public sector debt would rise to 145 per cent of GDP by 2062-63, while with high net migration it would fall to 73 per cent.

Brexit has in fact forced ministers to increasingly acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: Britain needs immigrants. Those who boasted during the referendum of their desire to reduce the number of newcomers have been forced to qualify their remarks. Brexit secretary David Davis, for instance, recently conceded that immigration woud not invariably fall after the UK leaves the EU. "I cannot imagine that the policy will be anything other than that which is in the national interest, which means that from time to time we’ll need more, from time to time we’ll need less migrants."

Though Davis insisted that the government would eventually meet its "tens of thousands" target (a level not seen since 1997), he added: "The simple truth is that we have to manage this problem. You’ve got industry dependent on migrants. You’ve got social welfare, the national health service. You have to make sure they continue to work."

As my colleague Julia Rampen has charted, Davis's colleagues have inserted similar caveats. Andrea Leadsom, the Environment Secretary, who warned during the referendum that EU immigration could “overwhelm” Britain, has told farmers that she recognises “how important seasonal labour from the EU is to the everyday running of your businesses”. Others, such as the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, and the Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, have issued similar guarantees to employers. Brexit is fuelling immigration nimbyism: “Fewer migrants, please, but not in my sector.”

Alongside the new immigration figures, GDP growth in the first quarter of 2017 was revised down to 0.2 per cent - the weakest performance since Q4 2012. In recent history, there has only been one reliable means of reducing net migration: a recession. Newcomers from the EU halved after the 2008 crash. Should the UK suffer the downturn that historic trends predict, it will need immigrants more than ever. Both the government and voters may only miss migrants when they're gone.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496