MEDIA STUDIES
Will Ms Cherie Booth QC appear against the Blairite Lord Hollick?
STEPHEN GLOVER
Once before I have written about James Hughes-Onslow. On that occasion the poor chap had been sacked by dear old Max Hastings, editor of the Evening Stan- dard. Now he has been shown the door by Rosie Boycott, editor of the Express. Not literally, mind you, for Ms Boycott is one of those sensitive souls who does not like to do the business herself. Since she came to power in April, some 15 journalists have been dismissed, but in few if any cases has she informed the victim herself.
I scarcely know Mr Hughes-Onslow, and the dramas of his working life would not detain us if they were not part of a grander theme. I previously used his experiences to illustrate the precarious nature of the jour- nalist's life, and advised young hopefuls about to embark on a career in newspapers to mark what had happened to him. That theme certainly holds good for this second episode but it is joined to another one involving the Prime Minister and Cherie Blair, as well as Lord Hollick, who is chief executive of United News and Media, which owns the Express, and a prominent Blairite life peer.
Lord Hollick needs little introduction as the man who has harnessed the Express to Blairism. (By the way, whenever discussing the Express I should point out that I write a column for its rival, the Daily Mail.) I have alluded in the past to the activities of Lord Hollick's associate, the Blairite pollster Philip Gould, who inhabits the Express building on Blackfriars Bridge as a kind of political commissar. I have also mentioned the unexplained appearances of Peter Man- delson in the same building. Lord Hollick, for his part, is a special adviser at the Department of Trade. Let's just agree he is committed to the cause.
When he appointed Ms Boycott she not unnaturally wished to get rid of some jour- nalists and replace them with others. Actu- ally her record has been less awe-inspiring than that of dear Max, who laid waste a rather greater number of careers when he took over at the Evening Standard in Jan- uary 1996. The trouble is that getting rid of long-serving employees can be expensive. Max — or rather his proprietor, Vere Rothermere, who died last week — ensured that all victims including Mr Hugh- es-Onslow were properly compensated. Lord Hollick has been less generous.
Employees of long standing have been treated shabbily. I don't just mean that they have been cursorily sacked without expla- nation by functionaries, and sometimes refused leave to appeal, or even talk, to the great Ms Boycott. They have also been treated oddly by the lights of employment law. Journalists have been told they will get little or no redundancy unless they first sign an agreement which stipulates that dis- missed employees will receive their pay-offs in instalments from which any money they earn in new employment will be deducted. One recently sacked employee is tele- phoned every couple of weeks by a person- nel manager and asked whether she has earned any money.
Surely a pay-off is a pay-off and should not be reduced merely because one is fortu- nate enough to find employment elsewhere. Lord Hollick invokes recommendations made by Sir Richard Greenbury, chairman of Marks & Spencers, to justify his practice. But Sir Richard's proposals, as he has made clear in a recent letter, were directed at 'fat cat' directors who accept huge pay-offs and go immediately into new employment. They were not meant to apply to ordinary employees whose pay-offs are very much smaller. This cheeseparing Lord Hollick is the same Lord Hollick who had a hand in a white paper produced in May called 'Fair- ness at Work', which sought to strengthen the rights of employees.
Mr Hughes-Onslow had just finished his 'Beachcomber' column last Thursday after- noon when he was summoned to the man- aging editor's office and dismissed without proper explanation. What Ms Boycott (who naturally was not present) and Lord Hollick seem not to have realised is that he is a very old friend of Tony Blair. Ms Boycott had not conversed with him since becoming edi- tor. To her and Lord Hollick, no doubt, he was just another expendable fifty-some- thing journalist on £40,000 a year. They did not know that a former girlfriend of Mr Hughes-Onslow had lived in the same house as Mr Blair at Oxford, and that the two men had become mates.
In fact, when Lord Hollick took over the Express two and a half years ago a rather worried Mr Hughes-Onslow had tele- phoned his old friend. 'Don't worry,' he was told. 'He's a good man and he's in it for the long haul.' This remark does suggest that Lord Hollick was seen as advancing the Blairite cause. At all events, immedi- ately following his dismissal Mr Hughes- Onslow wrote to Mr Blair. He appears to have painted Lord Hollick as an employer indistinguishable from the grimmest Victo- rian mill owner. Far from being an adorn- ment to New Labour, Lord Hollick was someone who might harm the cause.
How will Mr Blair react, torn as he is between an old friend and an important ally who is revealed in the darkest colours? I daresay that he would like to deflect the whole issue, and may well be tempted to ask his press secretary, Alastair Campbell, to drop Mr Hughes-Onslow a soothing but non-committal note. But there is a poten- tial complication. After writing to Mr Blair, Mr Hughes-Onslow faxed a letter to Cherie Blair — also an old friend — who tele- phoned him within 20 minutes. She offered to represent him in the legal case which he is contemplating bringing against Lord Hol- lick and Express newspapers, and foresaw no personal difficulty in opposing this New Labour panjandrum.
Whatever happens, it may be that Lord HoHick's stock has fallen at No. 10, and that Mr Blair has begun to grasp that there are some embarrassing contradictions between Lord Hollick the employer and Lord Hollick the Department of Trade adviser and champion of employee rights. Perhaps Lord Hollick will feel chastened and be a little more careful in future. In his hierarchical, managerially tiered world, as perhaps in that of Ms Boycott, lowly hacks are not supposed to bite back. They are not supposed to be friends with prime minis- ters. It is at times like these that I feel that England is still England.
Idon't have any settled views about the takeover by BSIcyB (in which Rupert Mur- doch has a controlling share) of Manch- ester United. But it is not difficult to under- stand why so many people are scared of Murdoch. Coverage in his papers has been disgraceful. The Times just passed muster and admitted that there were voices opposed to the takeover. But the Sun — rather more influential in footballing circles — gave almost no coverage to the oppo- nents of the deal, and reported the affair as Pravda used to write about the heroic exploits of the Supreme Soviet. Is David Yelland, the new editor, a little mad?
Previous page
