Why does the Times no longer thunder against the euro?
STEPHEN GLO\ ER
In the 1997 general election campaign the Times singled out Europe as the most important issue facing the electorate. Antieuro editorials came thick and fast. Even convinced Eurosceptics wondered whether the paper had taken leave of its senses after it published a full list of candidates with anti-European credentials. The Times advised its readers to vote for those who had most vocally opposed further European integration. It was a brave, if slightly eccentric. campaign.
How things have changed. In recent weeks the Times has barely been able to work up any interest in Europe or the euro. One leader has even suggested (21 May) that 'it is possible. . . that voters do not place as much emphasis on the euro as does Conservative Central Office'. This week, after Margaret Thatcher had laid into the single currency rather in the style of the Times in 1997, the paper had nothing to say in support. As for its reporting, this seems sometimes almost to have favoured the federalist side of the argument. On 9 May the 'splash' informed readers that 'the Prime Minister tried to turn Europe into a winning issue for Labour yesterday as he made Britain's leadership role one of his key planks to win a second term'. Another splash, on 12 May, revealed the admittedly extreme anti-federalist remarks of the Tory MP Sir Peter Tapsell, who was portrayed as a bit of a loon. The 1997 Times would have rushed to his defence.
What is going on? The most obvious theory, and the one most widely believed outside the Times, is that its proprietor Rupert Murdoch no longer abominates the euro. This, it is suggested, also explains why the Times's demotic sibling, the euro-hating Sun, has practically nothing to say on the subject at the moment. (The paper's leader column ignored the remarks of its heroine Lady Thatcher which in former times would have had it dancing a reel.) It is a plausible theory which we certainly shouldn't dismiss. But the explanation is perhaps more subtle. Mr Murdoch may not yet have been converted to the euro, but he has decided that Tony Blair must be re-elected at all costs. To rage against Europe and the euro now would inevitably be to undermine New Labour and offer succour to the Tories. Mr Murdoch does not propose to put Tony Blair on the rack.
Nor indeed does my old friend Peter Stothard, editor of the Times. I am sure
that Mr Murdoch is not in very regular contact with him. Mr Stothard knows what Mr Murdoch's feelings are, and he has his own prejudices, which have been increasingly anti-Tory, or at any rate anti-Hague. I do not know if Mr Stothard is any less antieuro than he used to be, but he is certainly a great deal more pro-New Labour, which in the context of this general election means roughly the same thing. More Blairite voices echo in his offices than used to be the case. The rise of Tim Hames, a former Oxford don, is particularly significant. Mr Hames sails under Tory libertarian colours but it is difficult to discern any views in his writings that are not Blairite, including those on Europe. He writes many of the paper's leaders on European matters, though as I have said these are in rather short supply at the moment.
In 1997, when it was exhorting its readers to back anti-European candidates, the Times represented itself as the historic defender of the union and of Britishness. 'For the Times today — and for the Times in the spirit of its best past — the European future is the fulcrum of public policy.' Surely the euro is as pressing an issue now as it was then, probably more so. Only foolish people forecast that New Labour, if re-elected, will not hold a referendum on our membership of the single currency. The Times, alas, seems to have forgotten the principles which animated it during the 1997 campaign. It should try to overcome its scruples about not harming Mr Blair and tell us what it really thinks about the euro and how important it is. Should we put our cross against the name of the most anti-European candidate as we were asked to do last time? Or should we simply back whomever is standing for New Labour? I think we should be told.
Michael Pilgrim has been sacked as editor of the Sunday Express and become a hero. He wrote a memorandum to the newspaper's new owner, the porn magazine tycoon Richard Desmond, complaining of constant pressure from management to do things 'outside the legitimate ethical remit of a newspaper'. There can be little doubt that Mr Pilgrim's points are well founded. He mentions several stories which, he plausibly claims, were suppressed because they might have harmed Mr Desmond's business interests. So as Mr Pilgrim negotiates his substantial pay-off, many people will be cheering him to the rafters. Mr Desmond is so obviously an awful man, and anyone who stands up to him must be a hero. And yet, you know, something about this story makes me a little uneasy. I am sure I should not attach any relevance to the fact that Mr Pilgrim used to work for the Observer, which was the paper that last Sunday published details of his memorandum to Mr Desmond. These things happen, as we know. But I cannot help reflecting that Mr Pilgrim did agree to work for Mr Desmond six months ago when it was as clear as it is now what kind of man Desmond is. I am not altogether surprised by reports that some Sunday Express journalists are angry that Mr Pilgrim should have commandeered the high ground, and are alleging that he wrote his memo only after he realised that his number was up. Mr Pilgrim may not be quite the hero that at first sight he seems to be.
Newspapers from the Daily Mail to the Guardian have bashed New Labour for suggesting that leading television companies have been 'inciting and colluding' with antigovernment protesters. My immediate instincts were exactly the same. New Labour is 20 points ahead in some polls, yet here it is showing its natural paranoia, and seemingly denying that there are one or two people in the world who might want to mount a genuine protest against it.
And yet I wonder whether Margaret McDonagh, Labour's general secretary, did not have a point. Most print journalists will have seen protesters performing to camera. On occasion I have seen such people talking to television journalists before and after the event. There is no evidence that these things have been going on during this election, but it is surely not impossible that they might have been.
John Prescott behaved like a thug. But. would Craig Evans have thrown that egg when he did and in the way he did if television cameras had not been present? And is it inconceivable that the Sky camera crew had some warning of what he was about to do? Unlike the BBC's pictures of the punch, Sky's were brilliant. Its crew was in exactly the right position. No doubt a total coincidence — but I hate it when the media become holier than thou and close ranks.
Previous page
