Labour takes a jump to the left with Corbyn landslide

LABOUR LEADERSHIP RESULT

Jeremy CORBYN	251,417	59.5%
Andy BURNHAM	80,462	19%
Yvette COOPER	71,928	17%
Liz KENDALL	18,857	4.5%
Turnout	422,664	76.3%

LABOUR made its most radical shift in decades as the landslide election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader marked the end of the New Labour era.

Mr Corbyn enjoyed an overwhelming victory in the first round of the ballot, taking 251,417 votes (59.5%) to finish well ahead of early favourite Andy Burnham (19%) and another former government minister, Yvette Cooper (17%).

The Blairite candidate Liz Kendall limped home in last place with just 18,857 votes (4.5%).

Already, though, Mr Corbyn has faced some internal opposition.

Within minutes of the result, shadow Health Secretary Jamie Reed had resigned, while - only a little later - Ms Cooper, former leader Ed Miliband and another shadow minister Rachel Reeves all confirmed they would not serve in a Corbyn Cabinet.

Of course, none of this is an unexpected turn of events or even a complete disaster for the new leader - bemused former Deputy PM Lord Prescott even pondered "who?" when asked about Mr Reed live on the BBC.

Nevertheless, even these minor enough ructions demonstrate amply the extent of the work which Mr Corbyn faces to keep his party united.

In fairness to the 66-year-old Islington North MP, he did offer a few olive branches in his opening speech to those on other wings of the party to himself and his many grassroots supporters.

He joked amicably about his differences of opinion with fellow candidate Ms Kendall and their sharing of late-night trains heading home from hustings meetings.

There was also a conspicuous absence of any mention of his views on the UK membership of NATO or the renewal of the nuclear deterrent Trident.

He did, however, attack the media directly, describing parts of it as "abusive" and "intrusive".

Notably, his newly-elected deputy, Tom Watson, is perhaps best remembered for taking on the News of the World over phone-hacking allegations in the last Parliament.

It is fair to say then that neither Mr Corbyn nor Mr Watson will be doing any Blair-style cosying-up to the likes of Rupert Murdoch's Sun newspaper or Paul Dacre's Daily Mail.

This will undoubtedly work against Mr Corbyn - he will be seen as fair game by the right-wing media which will dig for dirt and shriek hysterically at every perceived misstep.

But, at the same time, this is something which Mr Corbyn appears willing to accept as he moves Labour in an entirely different direction.

Indeed, he is aware that far greater damage will come opposition on his own side as he shifts Labour away from so-called austerity-lite policies and towards the renationalisation of the railways and major utilities.

Additionally, the road to national electoral success is mathematically difficult anyway, to say the least.

For, even if an anti-austerity Corbyn-led party won back the votes of every supporter of the Scottish Nationalists, the rump Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, there would still be a Conservative majority.

Boundary changes, due in this Parliament, will also favour the Tories - and so, while it is an uncomfortable proposition, Labour simply must do better against the Conservatives in Middle England to win.

Yes, there are the many - mainly younger - non-voters who could be swept up by Mr Corbyn before the next general election.

All the available evidence suggests, though, that the Conservative-dominated over-65s demographic will continue to out-vote their younger counterparts.

The worry then is that Labour has thrown a Corbyn-shaped comfort blanket around itself, and will do no better in 2020 than it did in May this year.

Perhaps a more pertinent worry for democracy generally, though, is that Mr Corbyn may not even be afforded the opportunity to make his case if the internal party disputes force him out.

This would be despite his huge mandate in having won almost 60% of the total vote, and having won in each of the three sections - comprising of party members, registered supporters and affiliated supporters.

Rightly, right now, there is scepticism over whether Mr Corbyn has a widespread enough appeal to win an election against the Conservatives.

But at least the election of Mr Corbyn will decisively end a previously accepted view that the two main parties were just the same.

Mr Corbyn is ready to give British politics a shake - indeed, it might never be quite the same again.

The boobs are back - but for how much longer?

THE DEMISE of the Page 3 model in the Sun newspaper last week was greatly exaggerated with the tabloid defiantly printing the photo of a topless young lady in its Thursday edition.

Campaigners in the No More Page 3 pressure group had tentatively celebrated victory last Tuesday after even the Sun's sister paper the Times suggested the 44-year Page 3 era was finally over.

However, it now appears to be the case that the whole thing was a bit of a publicity stunt, something which the Sun itself was not too sheepish in pointing out.

"Further to recent reports in all other media outlets, we would like to clarify that this is Page 3 and this is a [topless] picture of Nicole, 22, from Bournemouth," it said.

"We would like to apologise on behalf of the print and broadcast journalists who have spent the last two days talking and writing about us."

But it would be a surprise if this was the final chapter in this particular story.

Rumours that Page 3 was on its last legs began circulating as early as February 2013 when the newspaper's proprietor Rupert Murdoch dropped hints of a different direction on Twitter.

Later that year, in August, The Sun’s Irish edition dropped topless Page 3 pictures, with Dublin-based editor Paul Clarkson citing “cultural differences”.

Then, last September, the surest signs yet of a change of mindset came when Mr Murdoch pondered: "Aren't beautiful young women more attractive in at least some fashionable clothes?"

By the middle of this month, the Sun seemed to be following their owner's lead - or, more likely, his direct orders - with the topless model missing from three consecutive editions.

And indeed, the feeling remains that, despite the triumphant return of the feature last Thursday, this may well yet be a short-lived stay of execution.

Not that any final decision will be the result of pressure from the No More Page 3 campaigners.

Rather, octogenarian Mr Murdoch will decide the fate of Page 3 on the basis of a hardened commercial calculation with the increasingly raunchy celebrity world seemingly helping him make his mind up.

His latest tweet said yesterday: "Worry not, The Sun will always have great looking women - and men!"

Noticeably, though, this again does not stipulate that they will necessarily be topless.

Time has, indeed, moved on. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, some of the Sun's Page 3 girls ended up being bona fide celebrities in their own right.

Nowadays, that does not really happen anymore - and it is fair to say, at best, the feature seems dated.

To its worst critics of course, Page 3 has always been totally incongruous with the Sun's self-proclamation of being a "family" newspaper.

But it would potentially be the start of a very dangerous game if any government were ever to legislate control over what any newspaper printed simply on grounds of taste and decency.

And so, for now, boosted by a big wave of somewhat self-made publicity, it is no surprise to see the boobs are back.

And that, while you can't see tits on the radio, you can still see them on page three of the country's best-selling daily newspaper.

Coulson guilty, Cameron guilty by association

PHONE-HACKING VERDICT 

(2) = facing two charges

Defendant	Charge(s)	Verdict
Andy Coulson	conspiracy to hack phones conspiring to commit misconduct in public office(2)	Guilty No verdict returned
Rebekah Brooks	conspiracy to hack phones conspiracy to pervert the course of justice(2) conspiring to commit misconduct in public office(2)	Cleared  of all charges
Charlie Brooks	conspiracy to pervert the course of justice	Cleared
Clive Goodman	conspiring to commit misconduct in public office(2)	No verdict returned
Cheryl Carter	conspiracy to pervert the course of justice	Cleared
Mark Hanna	conspiracy to pervert the course of justice	Cleared
Stuart Kuttner	conspiracy to hack phones	Cleared

 
PRIME MINISTER David Cameron apologised today after his former Director of Communications, Andy Coulson, was found guilty of conspiracy to hack phones while editor at the News of the World.

Coulson, who was editor of the newspaper between 2003 and 2007, was convicted by the jury of eight women and three men at the Old Bailey.

However, his predecessor at the now-defunct paper, the flame-haired Rebekah Brooks, was cleared of all of the charges against her.

Mrs Brooks's husband, Charlie Brooks, was cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, as was her long-standing personal secretary Cheryl Carter and News International's head of security Mark Hanna.

The last of the seven defendants, former News of the World managing editor Stuart Kuttner, was cleared of conspiring to hack voicemails.

The trial, which lasted 138 days, was one of the longest and most expensive in British legal history - but, with justice served in the courts, attention soon turned to Downing Street.

Mr Cameron, who hired Coulson only weeks after he resigned from the News of the World, had earlier promised to apologise if Coulson was found guilty.

And, today, Mr Cameron had to make that apology, stating that he was "extremely sorry" that he had made "the wrong decision" despite the assurances he had received.

Of course, the apology is all well and good - although, frankly, anything less would have surely been an abdication of responsibility. Nevertheless, doubts will remain over Mr Cameron's judgement.

After all, the PM had gone against the advice of some his own colleagues in making the appointment.

It was no surprise then to see Labour leader Ed Miliband look to make some easy political capital out of the verdict.

"David Cameron brought a criminal into the heart of Downing Street," declared Mr Miliband.

But the Tories can point out that Labour also once had a close association with the News of the World, such was the power of the Rupert Murdoch-owned weekly.

As a matter of fact, it was revealed during the trial that former Prime Minister Tony Blair had sent a series of text messages to Mrs Brooks signed with a "T" and a kiss.

And, this was not the only close relationship exposed in the deliberations at the Old Bailey.

It emerged, quite sensationally, that Coulson and Mrs Brooks had indulged in a long-term affair between 1998 and 2007 while Mrs Brooks was married to her ex-husband, actor Ross Kemp.

The jury ruled today, though, that while Coulson definitely knew that phone-hacking was going on at his newspaper, it could not be said that Mrs Brooks did.

So, while her embarrassment may be quite considerable - at least, in the eyes of the law, she cannot be considered a criminal.

In spite of this, few tears will be shed among phone-hacking victims for Mrs Brooks.

They will argue that the pain they suffered through the invasion of their privacy by Coulson and others at the News of the World far outweighs her embarrassment.

And, while welcoming Coulson's conviction and the damages they have received in their own civil cases, the phone-hacking victims could easily argue that they are still without an overriding resolution.

That, of course, was meant to emerge from the Leveson Inquiry into "the culture, practices and ethics of the press", which concluded that some kind of statutory regulation was required.

Political wrangling and some reasonable worries about state control of the press resulted in outright statutory regulation being replaced by a Royal Charter.

But, while Murdoch has been able to start up a new weekly paper on a Sunday, none of his publications has yet signed up to the Charter.

Nor have the newspapers from the Mail group, the Telegraph group or the Trinity Mirror stable.

Indeed, despite the Coulson verdict today, not much seems to have changed at all.

The Sun takes the paywall plunge

THE SUN newspaper took a momentous step yesterday by joining its Murdoch stablemates, the Times and the Sunday Times, and putting its online content behind a paywall.

Subscribers will have to pay £2 per week for access to Sun+, the website version of Britain's biggest selling paper.

But, while the stats have shown for years that the Sun has been a success off the news stands, it has begun its online revolution from a rather low base.

Recent figures put the pre-paywall Sun website readers on 1.8million unique browsers per day. This compares poorly to the market leader, the still-free Mail Online of the Daily Mail, which attracts an average of 8.1million visitors.

Meanwhile, the Guardian - with 4.8millions daily users - comes next, ahead of the Daily Telegraph, with 2.7million.

As direct tabloid rivals, though, it will be the increase in the Daily Mirror's online traffic which would have been of most concern to the Sun.

Even before the paywall was erected, the Mirror had made a march on the Sun - and, yesterday, it cleverly used the front page of its website to declare "the best things in life are free".

So what does the Sun have to offer to tempt subscribers?

Easily the biggest booty which has been publicised is the newspaper's £30m+ investment in Premier League highlights.

It is an apparently a good enough move that media commentator Steve Hewlett "can see [it] working" - but I remain a lot more sceptical.

For a start, the BBC's Match of the Day will show exactly the same goals a little later but on a free-to-air basis.

And, for anyone out on the town on a Saturday night or too hungover to watch the Sunday morning repeat, MotD will even be on iPlayer for the first time in this coming season.

As for the Sun's other potential unique selling points... Want breaking news? Then, look no further than the BBC or Sky websites.

Desiring a right-wing rant against immigrants or welfare 'scroungers'? Try the Mail Online, if you must. There, you will also find enough vacuous celeb gossip to preclude the need for the Sun.

Finally, charging for Page 3 tits - on the internet of all places - just sounds totally ludicrous.

Of course, the Sun - and its new editor David Dinsmore - could prove me wrong - and, indeed, the whole journalism industry remains optimistic that some sort of paywall scheme could work.

Already, though, some of the Sun's biggest-name retail advertisers, such as Tesco, Currys and Marks & Spencers, are holding fire on running activity on the Sun+ - at least until it can prove that it has sustained evidence that it is reaching its ambitious subscriber targets.

The Sun has responded by launching an ad campaign of its own, but the £10m spent there just adds to the spiralling costs which will need to be recouped by getting readers on board.

Estimates suggest the Sun will need to attract more than 250,000 subscribers to cover the loss of online advertising and make back its outlay on the digital Premier League football.

It will do well to get anywhere near that. The website of Rupert Murdoch's other daily News UK title, the Times, went behind a paywall in July 2010 and is ailing badly, reaching fewer readers now than the Independent and the London Evening Standard.

The crux of the matter seems to be that, unlike those of other major newspapers, the News UK websites do not give away any content for free.

By contrast, in March, the Telegraph began employing a metered paywall which allows a limit of 20 free articles before those wanting more are invited to take out a free trial subscription, and then a paid one, from a cost of £2 a week.

This allows casual consumers of the Telegraph, like myself, to pass by the website every now and then, with more ardent readers having to subscribe.

So far, the tactic has been pretty successful with no discernible downturn in traffic, and perhaps a metered paywall is the way forward for newspapers looking to make money from its online content.

All the while, the Sun - and the Times - are having to rely entirely on the loyalty and goodwill of their readers. Good luck to them with that.

Leveson leaves Cameron in a spot of bother

PRIME MINISTER David Cameron faced accusations of betrayal yesterday after he rejected Lord Justice Leveson's call to set up a press regulation body underpinned by law.

Lord Leveson wrote in his report that the press had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people" for many decades. He also described some of the behaviour of the Fourth Estate as "outrageous".

"There have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist," the judge added.

However, Mr Cameron, speaking in the Commons shortly after the 2400-page document was published, said he had "serious concerns and misgivings" over bringing in laws to underpin any new body.

The Conservative leader added: "We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and the free press."

Unsurprisingly, that has not gone down too well with Hacked Off, the campaign which represents all victims of press intrusion, both the rich and famous as well as ordinary members of the public.

Actor Steve Coogan was one of the first to speak out. "By rejecting Leveson's call for statutory regulation, [Mr] Cameron has hung the victims of crime out to dry," he said.

"He has passed on the opportunity to make history. He has revealed there isn't an ounce of substance in his body, that he has one eye on courting the press for elections in years to come, and doesn't know the meaning of conviction."

Gerry McCann, father of Madeleine, and Christopher Jefferies - who was subjected to all sorts of lurid and untrue allegations about the murder of his tenant Jo Yeates - have refused in protest to meet with Culture Secretary Maria Miller.

And the stand-off leaves the ball, as Lord Leveson himself, said in the Prime Minister's court. The only problem is that Mr Cameron does not seem keen to play.

That position very much put him at odds with his coalition partner. Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg revealed himself to be perhaps the least liberal Liberal leader in history by fully backing the recommendations.

Meanwhile, Labour leader Ed Miliband eyed the latest bandwagon to jump on by taking the same stance.

For, while it is ultimately difficult to tell Mr Cameron's exact motives, and it could all be to do with elections, Mr Coogan and the others might just be wrong on this one.

After all, the Prime Minister is hardly making a populist move, on the face of it.

Yougov polling for the Media Standards Trust shows that 79% of the public agree with the statement: "There should be an independent body, established by law, which deals with complaints and decides what sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct."

However, the situation is not quite as clear as that. Another poll by the firm for The Sun newspaper found that only 24% of people agreed that there should be "a regulatory body set up through law by Parliament, with rules agreed by MPs".

Against that, 42% think that the body should be "set up through legally binding contracts by the media industry, with rules agreed by newspaper owners".

Peter Kellner, head of Yougov, explained this apparent contradiction by the framing of the two questions: "In short, we don’t like the idea of politicians curbing the freedom of speech. But neither do we want editors and publishers remaining in charge of regulation."

Kellner added: "Ideally, we would like a new law to force the media to behave better – but don’t want MPs making that law.

"The trouble with that, of course, is that law-making is the central function of MPs. More than anything else, that is what we elect them to do."

Meanwhile, even Lord Leveson has said that “press freedom in Britain, hard won over 300 years ago” should not be jeopardised, and that all of the press served the country "very well for the vast majority of the time".

But, quite how the judge squares those sentiments with the need for new legislation remains unclear.

The simple fact is that existing laws dealing with phone-hacking, libel, harassment, and invasion of privacy were not enforced.

Of course, in many cases, completely appropriate existing law has been implemented. Just this week, former News International boss Rebekah Brooks and ex-News of the World editor Andy Coulson appeared in court accused of making payments to public officials for information.

They, and others formerly in News International, have also been charged with phone hacking.

Additionally, Mr Coogan, Mr Jefferies, the McCanns and many others have all been successful in libel suits against the press.

Understandably, victory in the courts rarely fully compensates the initial feeling of mistreatment by the press. It does, however, show that there is already a procedure in place to keep the press in check.

Even the broadcast media, which is independently regulated by Ofcom and the BBC Trust, slips up from time to time, as recent events have shown.

The fact remains that there will always be some downright nasty people, and therefore some downright nasty journalists, willing to push the boundaries too far.

It is a shame that the industry seems to attract more than a proportional share of those sorts but the vast majority are good eggs including almost all of them in the local press which is seldom in trouble.

Moreover, it must be pointed out that not all the figures in the media opposing statutory regulation are exactly Mr Cameron fans.

Private Eye editor Ian Hislop spends most of his lifetime mocking the Prime Minister but wonders, like myself, why we cannot just enforce the laws we "already have against phone hacking, harassment, libel, bribery etc".

Of course, ultimately, it may be the case that MPs from Labour, the Lib Dems, the Scottish Nationalists, and some Tories, will begin the legislative process by winning a vote, expected to be held at the end of January.

Even if the vote were non-binding, Mr Cameron would then be under extreme pressure not to set the wheels in motion for the introduction of statutory regulation.

Now, another law on the statute book would be a blow for the free press of this country and investigative journalism, in particular.

Nevertheless, the effect has already been exaggerated in some quarters - after all, we would hardly be living in North Korea.

Frankly, though, it is hard to see the new law being anything other than a law which asks for other existing laws already to be enforced.

In other words - just like the 16-month-long, £5m Leveson Inquiry, it will probably be a bit of a waste of time.

Another nail in the coffin

THE offices of the oldest provincial evening newspaper in England will close after regional publishers Johnston Press announced the creation of a new editorial hub on the outskirts of Sunderland.

Staff at the Shields Gazette were told of the move yesterday. Their paper was first published in 1849, 163 years ago.

Meanwhile, reporters on another of the papers in the Johnston Press north east stable - the Hartlepool Mail - have also been told that they will be affected.

The company expects there to be 15 redundancies in all - six of these will be in editorial and nine in advertising.

Worryingly, this news follows quickly from last week's announcement by Johnston Press that five of its daily papers would instead be published on a weekly basis from next month.

In that case, the titles affected were the Peterborough Evening Telegraph, the Scarborough Evening News, the Halifax Courier, the Northampton Chronicle and Echo, and the Northants Evening Telegraph.

Apparently, it is all part of "a major redesign exercise", according to the company executives with their heads in the clouds.

But the reality on the ground is rather different.

For a start, the removal of the Shields Gazette will deny part of the town its identity. Although the town is only five miles further up the coast from Sunderland, it is big enough in itself to have its own distinct sense of community; Hartlepool, rather more ludicrously, is 17 miles away.

In actual fact, the offices to which they are moving - on the Pennywell Industrial Estate - are barely fit for the purpose of reporting on Sunderland, never mind anywhere else.

Some four miles outside the city centre, the Echo moved there from Bridge Street in 1976. So much for the idea that a local newspaper should be at the centre of the action.

And, far from the appearance of Rupert Murdoch at the Leveson Inquiry this week - in which he told us pretty much what we already knew about his relationships with various Prime Ministers - this announcement by Johnston Press is far more relevant to the state of British journalism today.

It is certainly a matter which is closer to me than the ongoing circus in Westminster: in the past, I have done work experience at the Echo and another of the north east Johnston Press papers, and I also have a few friends who work for the company.

I can only imagine that they will be worried by this news, but no doubt they will continue working as diligently as ever for their respective publications, despite the uncertain background.

Without wishing ill on them, though, it seems rather inevitable that they too will be caught up by the Johnston Press axe in some way before it is over.

This is the real story of modern day British journalism, not Murdoch or Leveson as the rolling news channels would have you believe. Sadly, this story only seems to have losers.

The biggest losers in this case are, of course, the readers of the Shields Gazette and the Hartlepool Mail who will no longer have a paper which can serve them fully.

However, in terms of the industry, the reporters will also lose out - either directly by having been put out of a job or indirectly by facing extra workloads and/or travel times.

And finally, there are the naive many who once had hope of becoming a local news reporter but whose hope then turned to anxious desperation and has now just about run out.

These are sad times indeed for the British newspaper industry.

The Sun plays safe on Sunday debut

THE SUN ON SUNDAY celebrated a successful launch this weekend, pulling in 3.26 million punters for its debut edition.

It was certainly an impressive start for Rupert Murdoch's new tabloid, easily outselling its nearest rival, the Mail on Sunday, which managed its usual 1.9 million.

Meanwhile, the Sunday Mirror on 1.7 million, the People on 780,266, and the Daily Star Sunday with 640,406 were left trailing in its wake.

And so, Mr Murdoch was undoubtedly pleased with the newspaper's performance.

Having earlier said he would be "very happy" with the sale of two million copies, he tweeted: "Amazing! The Sun confirmed sale of 3,260,000 copies. Thanks all readers and advertisers. Sorry if sold out - more next time."

Already, there can be no doubt that the Sun on Sunday has shaken up the weekend market. In true Murdoch-style, it has arrived in a blaze of publicity and sparked a price war by retailing at just 50p.

The Daily Star Sunday tried to compete by doing likewise while Trinity Mirror - owner of the Sunday Mirror and the People - opted for an unconvincing strategy by reducing prices in only some areas of the country.

Nothing could match the novelty of the Sun on Sunday, though - even if the newspaper actually had a familiar look to it.

For a start, it was not the News of the World - that had become famous, and indeed infamous, for salacious 'kiss and tells', sensationalist undercover investigations and, eventually, its illegal practices.

Instead, it was more like a copy of the Sun in midweek. Leading with a big celebrity interview from Amanda Holden, the Sun on Sunday otherwise relied heavily on columnists such as Katie Price aka Jordan and political commentator Toby Young.

A full-page editorial - with the headline "A new Sun rises today" generally appealed to the readers' better nature, stating that, in the past, it had been "a tremendous force for good".

It added: "A newspaper which holds the powerful to account must do the same with itself. You will be able to trust our journalists to abide by the values of decency as they gather news." 

Nevertheless, this first edition was hardly hard-hitting stuff and, as such, it has generally received a lukewarm review from media commentators such as Roy Greenslade.

Of course, the opinion of the Guardian columnist will not have caused the staff on the Sun to lose much sleep but it is fair to say that the newspaper has had better days than on Monday.

The Leveson inquiry into media ethics has now moved on to cover the relationship between press and police following its coverage of the phone hacking allegations.

On a dramatic day, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sue Akers, said evidence suggested a "culture of illegal payments" at the Sun.

DAC Akers also claimed that payments allegedly made by the Sun to public officials, including the police, were authorised at a senior level.

Meanwhile, outside of the inquiry, singer Charlotte Church was the latest celebrity to agree damages with Mr Murdoch's company News International.

Ms Church said she was "sickened and disgusted" after a court found that her phone had been hacked and the newspaper had gained access to her medical records.

Certainly, then, it would have been more interesting if this bad day had come straight before the launch of the new newspaper.

But, even if it had, it still remains likely that the curiosity of some members of the British public would have no doubt got the better of them following Mr Murdoch's multi-million pound campaign.

Rightly or wrongly, many readers will consider the Sun on Sunday to be a fresh start for the News International stable.

They will be pleased that it stayed away from trouble whilst also providing a big celebrity splash, exclusive columnists, and a 28-page football pullout.

From a journalism purist's perspective, this new newspaper may not quite have the same week-to-week impact as the News of the World - but nor will it be half the trouble of its predecessor.

For that reason alone, it looks as if the Sun on Sunday is here to stay for some time yet, regardless of what the inquiries say.

Murdoch rides to the Sun's rescue

RUPERT MURDOCH arrived in London yesterday to launch a new Sunday tabloid and reassure staff on the Sun of their jobs.

The Australian-born proprietor of News International was in Wapping to make his big announcement and meet disconcerted staff on the Sun.

Earlier this week, five senior journalists from the paper were arrested on suspicion of bribing police and public officials as part of Operation Elveden, the investigation by Scotland Yard into newspaper corruption.

Sun reporters have also become increasingly worried that an internal News Corp investigations unit, the management and standards committee (MSC), has handed over the names of confidential sources to the police.

And so, it was against an atmosphere described as "anxious and angry" that Mr Murdoch sent an email in an attempt to heal some wounds.

He wrote: "We will build on the Sun's proud heritage by launching the Sun on Sunday very soon... We're doing everything we can to assist those who are arrested.

"All suspensions are hereby lifted until or whether charged, and they are welcome to return to work."

The reaction of the staff in Wapping to the news was positive, though this was perhaps out of relief more than anything.

A News International journalist is even reported to have said: "This is a proper fightback. Even if there are other arrests, this is a 'fuck you, here we are, we are carrying on despite everything.'"

However, others were less convinced by Mr Murdoch's statement.

Another reporter said: "This changes nothing. [There is still] a huge amount of concern across all three titles about protection of sources.

"Everyone is pleased that the suspensions have been lifted, but this is the language of the MSC. It makes no difference."

Overall, though, there is no doubt that most of the staff on the Sun will have gained a much-needed morale boost from the arrival of Mr Murdoch.

If nothing else, the upcoming launch of the Sun on Sunday shows that he is still committed to the UK newspaper industry... for now.

Nevertheless, there remain doubts over whether the whole of the Murdoch empire, namely News Corporation, will sail the same course - especially once Rupert's son, James, gains more control.

James Murdoch has made little secret of the fact that he is no fan of the printed press and it was not a surprise that he did not accompany his father on this trip.

He considers the UK newspapers to have caused him more problems than they are worth and, as a pragmatist and money man, he also thinks of them as a dying business.

The Times and the Sunday Times are loss-making while the Sun threatens to be caught in a similar mire to the one which accounted for the News of the World last July.

Of course, it has since emerged that claims of News of the World journalists deleting the voice messages on Milly Dowler's mobile phone was, on the balance of the available evidence, probably untrue.

But the very act of illegally hacking the phone of a murdered young girl, and others, was understandably enough to turn the collective stomach of the general public.

If the Sun journalists are also found guilty in this new crisis, it appears that Mr Murdoch will have short shrift for anyone involved.

For, he also wrote: "We will obey the law. Illegal activity simply cannot and will not be tolerated at any of our publications."

That appears to give Mr Murdoch, or at least his son James, a get-out clause from his apparent advances to the UK newspaper industry.

Indeed, the current BBC political presenter and former Sunday Times editor, Andrew Neil, warned: "Essentially, [Mr Murdoch] is between a rock and a hard place and he is playing for time.

"This will last until the next 12 arrests of Sun journalists or until he is forced to come down on one side.

"I am confident that the side he will come down on will be News Corporation in America. That is a multi-billion dollar business and News International is just a multi-million dollar business."

So, while on the surface, it appears Mr Murdoch may have flown in to save the Sun, this could yet be a relatively short-term fling.

That is not to say that the Sun, the Times and the Sunday Times will go the same way as the News of the World.

But, if it does all go wrong - and if James Murdoch gains any sort of control - none of the newspapers would get anywhere near as much attention from News International as they are right now.

Murdoch empire starts to fall apart

THE PHONE-hacking scandal has moved onto a new level in the last two weeks with arrests, resignations, apologies and recriminations.

Since my last post 12 days ago, the 168-year-old News of the World officially closed on 7 July and Rupert Murdoch withdrew his bid for full control of BSkyB on 13 July.

On 15 July, 11 days after it was revealed Millie Dowler's phone had been hacked, Rebekah Brooks - the chief executive of News International - eventually fell on her sword.

Two days later, on Sunday, she was arrested by the Metropolitan Police on suspicion of phone-hacking and making illicit payments to police officers. She was released on bail until October.

Just hours on from that, the country's most senior police officer, Met Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson then resigned.

Stephenson had received criticism for hiring former News of the World executive editor Neil Wallis as an advisor and for using a luxury health spa owned by a company for which Wallis also worked.

But the Commissioner departed with a stinging criticism of his own in the direction of Prime Minister David Cameron for the PM's ill-judged appointment of former News of the World editor Andy Coulson as his director of communications.

It is worth noting here that Coulson had been arrested on 8 July for conspiring to intercept communications. On 14 July, Wallis was arrested under suspicion of committing the same offence.

Before Brooks' arrest on 17 July, News International used their own newspapers and others to print a full-page apology.

The apology took the form of a letter from Murdoch in which he wrote: "The News of the World was in the business of holding others to account. It failed when it came to itself.

"We are sorry for the serious wrongdoing which occurred. We are deeply sorry for the hurt suffered by individuals affected. We regret not acting faster to sort things out."

However, in the next line, Murdoch added: "I realise that simply apologising is not enough." Even the 80-year-old Australian media mogul appears to think he is a busted flush in Britain.

That so much was evident by spiking of the BSkyB bid, although Murdoch and News International took it upon themselves to give the government and Parliament perhaps one last run around.

First, Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt looked less than impressive in referring the bid to the Competition Commission shortly after Murdoch confirmed he was happy to do this.

And then Murdoch pre-empted a special debate in the House of Commons on the bid by withdrawing it before proceedings started anyway.

Nevertheless, the debate went ahead and the MPs acted as if a millstones had been removed from their necks and spoke against Murdoch and News International without fear of reprisal.

These were quite extraordinary moments with members on all sides of the House lining up to pour scorn on the man who has indirectly controlled British politics since the rise of Margaret Thatcher in 1979.

The British political system may remain far from perfect, to say the least, but it seems now to be free of the clutches of Murdoch at last.

Even former Prime Minister Gordon Brown was in the chamber for only the second time since his general election defeat last May.

And the former Labour leader used his rare appearance to lay into News International.

He accused NI of "law-breaking on an industrial scale" and claimed it had "descended from the gutter to the sewers".

Mr Cameron had pointed out earlier at Prime Minister's Questions that, despite there being questions over his relationship to Coulson, he had at least set up an independent inquiry which his predecessor Mr Brown had failed to do.

However, Mr Brown attempted to defend himself saying his moves to set up a judicial review were blocked by senior civil servants.

Meanwhile, his successor Ed Miliband has had his strongest few weeks since gaining the Labour leadership last September.

Mr Miliband was written off as a weak performer after mixed May election results.

But, in this scandal, he has been judged to have set the agenda, giving his personal poll ratings a much-needed boost to the heady heights of -28 'approval'. Mr Cameron remains ahead of Mr Miliband on -13, though.

And, of course, the Labour leader has not emerged entirely squeaky clean from the scandal himself after confirmation he had also attended events in Brooks' lair.

I guess the mere fact that Mr Miliband was even present as Leader of the Opposition just goes to show how deep Murdoch and the other top brass at News International had their claws into British politics.

Ah, Murdoch and Brooks - back to them, inevitably.

Inevitable because they will provide the next development of this fascinating story when they appear before a House of Commons Select Committee tomorrow.

There, we will see if Parliament really will show its teeth having been freed from the leash of the Murdoch empire.

Phone-hacking: how low can the News of the World go?

THE phone-hacking saga at the News of the World has now become an outright scandal.

Previously confined to the concerns of celebrities, it is apparent that the tapping tentacles of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, working on behalf of the News International paper, went much further.

Murdered teenager Milly Dowler was one such victim while she was missing, the Guardian reported on Monday.

Others, according to police, who may have been hacked include the parents of murdered 10-year-old schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and the father of David Foulkes who died in the 7/7 bombings.

None of these people sought fame or notoriety. Rather, it was foisted upon them by tragic circumstances.

And, even when the phone-hacking related to celebrities, there was a sense of unease. Nevertheless, many journalists argued that these public figures were fair game having courted the media so much themselves.

Now that defence definitely cannot be used and the reputation of journalism as a profession is soiled once again.

Never mind that most local reporters would not dream of doing what the News of the World (and allegedly other nationals) have done.

FleetStreetBlues hoodies, stating 'I'm a hack, not a hacker', might help some of those reporters ride the storm of the next few days but, ultimately, it is the nationals on which journalism is judged.

This has not been a good week for the self-proclaimed Fourth Estate.

These phone-hacking revelations follow on the back of an admission by top Independent columnist Johann Hari that he routinely adds what interviewees have said or written previously, passing them off as quotes from his own interview.

But, while Hari was deservedly pilloried for his astonishing revelation, it could still be laughed off by the profession as a whole - hence these amusing tweets using the hashtag #interviewbyhari.

The difference this time is that the issue primarily concerns the News of the World (circulation of 2.78m), not the Independent (185,000), and it is of course no laughing matter.

Really, this should spell the end of the line for News of the World. It will not be - but, really, there is an argument it should*.

How the newspaper can ever take a moralistic tone on any issue again is quite beyond me.

No doubt it will still fill its pages on Sunday with stories about benefit cheats and drunken louts or teenage mums along with the news of who's screwing behind whose back, of course.

The phone-hacking issue will even be raised in Parliament today in a special Emergency Debate in the House of Commons.

Prime Minister David Cameron will surely repeat his condemnation from earlier this week of the practice of phone-hacking. But even Mr Cameron does not escape this tangled web entirely.

For, in 2007, the then-Leader of the Opposition appointed former News of the World editor Andy Coulson as his senior media advisor where he remained in place until his resignation in January this year.

In fairness, Mr Cameron was presumably unaware of how critical the phone-hacking situation would get but Mr Coulson's appointment still showed a serious lack of judgement on the Conservative leader's part.

After all, Mr Coulson had previously resigned from his position on the paper after royal correspondent Clive Goodman was jailed for four months for conspiracy to access voicemail messages left for royal aides.

At the time, Mr Coulson claiming the actions were the work of Goodman alone but this is a defence which subsequently collapsed in court.

Now, having been caught out, Rupert Murdoch's News International group should be forced to come clean altogether.

Though, if indeed they do, it is already difficult to imagine anything other than the News of the World coming out of it smelling like raw sewage.

*EDIT: Well, surprisingly, it has actually happened. This evening, News International chairman James Murdoch, son of Rupert, has announced that the last edition of the 168-year-old News of the World will be sold on Sunday. 

It is unclear at this stage whether this is simply an attempt to re-brand this part of the News International but clearly the outrage regarding the phone-hacking scandal has had an effect. 

When the advertisers started pulling out in their droves, it did not look good. Circulation among most newspapers is now so low that it is in fact the advertisers which provide the lifeline. 

Nevertheless, the News of the World - or the News of the Screws, as it became known for its salacious celebrity gossip - has been, in journalism parlance, spiked more quickly than I expected. 

Some remain skeptical that this is the end of News International's interest into producing a populist paper on a Sunday. 

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said: "All they're going to do is rebrand it". 

And Lord Prescott, who believes his phone was hacked while he was in government, added: "There's no doubt it will become the Sunday Sun". 

Perhaps, if that is Mr Murdoch's idea, someone should tell him that the Trinity Mirror-owned Newcastle Evening Chronicle group ncj media have already got there first.