Budget 2013: the front pages

The Sun turns on Osborne but much of Fleet Street gives the Budget a cautious thumbs up.

One litmus test of a Budget is how its received by the next day's papers, so here's what Fleet Street made of it all. 

The Sun takes the opportunity to have a swipe at the government over press regulation. The irony is that George Osborne was equally dismayed by the grubby nature of the deal and the presence of Hacked Off at the negotiations.

The Chancellor backed the paper's call for a cut in beer duty but the Sun complains that wine is up by 10p and spirits by 47p, while also expressing its long-standing opposition to the increase in overseas aid ("untouched once again, workers"). 

Team Osborne will be much happier with the front page of Fleet Street's other leading right-wing title, which declares that the Chancellor "seized the mantle of Margaret Thatcher" by supporting home ownership and cutting taxes. "I nearly choked on my toast and marmite," said Osborne this morning of the paper's mock up of him as the Iron Lady.

The Guardian contrasts Osborne's populist maneouvres with the anaemic economic outlook ("growth down, borrowing up"). 

The Telegraph gives a cautious welcome to Osborne's plans to support Britain's "property-owning democracy".

The Times also splashes on Osborne's housing annoucements declaring that the Chancellor has gone "for growth" (although the OBR small print shows that the Budget is forecast to boost GDP by precisely 0%). 

The FT focuses on Osborne's political positioning, while noting that the growth forecast for 2013 has been halved (from 1.2% to just 0.6%). 

The Mirror assails Osborne for his lack of fiscal activism, invoking the poverty of the 1900s. 

The Independent shares the Guardian's verdict, rightly noting that the economic outlook darkened in every respect yesterday. The paper also notes Barclays's decision to use Budget day to hand out £39m in bonuses for nine senior staff.

Finally, the Express gives the Budget the most favourable welcome of all, hailing Osborne's decision to cut beer duty, increase the personal allowance and support home buyers. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496