Show Hide image

The editor of The Oldie Richard Ingrams resigns – for being "too old" to attend a disciplinary hearing

The former Private Eye editor and founder of The Oldie resigns following a long-running dispute with the magazine's publisher.

Richard Ingrams, founder and editor of The Oldie, has resigned. Photo: Getty

 

Richard Ingrams, 76, who edited Private Eye for over 20 years, has stood down as editor of The OldieHe co-founded the magazine for the over-60s, which was established to "produce an antidote to youth culture", in 1992.

Ironically, his reason for resigning is because he considers himself "too old". To attend disciplinary meetings, that is. Ingrams has been in a long-running dispute with the magazine's publisher, James Pembroke, whom he describes as "impossible to work with".

Ingrams, who acknowledged that this story is something he'd once have relished at Private Eyecommented:

I had had a long-running dispute with him [Pembroke] about various things, culminating in his summoning me to this disciplinary hearing and saying if I was found guilty of misconduct I would be give a final written warning – in other words, threatened with the sack, really. I was hoping that we could discuss this yesterday [Thursday], but it transpired that Pembroke was determined to have this disciplinary hearing on Monday regardless. I was put in an impossible position, really.

The dispute involves a recent dip in the magazine's sales, as well as disagreements over its front covers. 

Here is a testimonial about The Oldie, from one of its better-known readers, Joan Bakewell:

Their trick is to make all this grumbling seem such fun.

But among its managers, it seems the fun has given way just to grumbling...

I'm a mole, innit.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.