Tonight:
4°c
It was impossible to read the latest interview with the man regarded as Rupert Murdoch's representative on earth, Irwin Stelzer, without laughing out loud. It made me wonder whether, aside from being a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a Washington think-tank, he is doing stand-up routines at the DC Improv comedy club. So, before we get to the serious stuff, here are some of Irwin's one-liners. "It is my impression that The Sun and the News of the World - to the extent they take direction from Murdoch - feel that Cameron is worth a look."
To the extent that they take direction from Murdoch? Good stuff, eh? Do we really think that the editor of The Sun could afford to ignore such direction? Back to the comedian: "Murdoch would never presume to tell the editor of The Times who to support. I mean, I've been there and I know he doesn't do it."
Stop it, Irwin, my sides are splitting. Of course Murdoch does not actually tell the editors of The Times and the Sunday Times what to do in the way that he does the editors of The Sun and the News of the World. On the other hand, if they were to surprise him by suddenly taking a line with which he did not agree, he would certainly pick up the phone.
We know this because, in his memoirs, the former Sunday Times editor, Andrew Neil, detailed call by call, conversation by conversation, Murdoch's pressure on him in the lead-up to Margaret Thatcher's downfall, during which Neil supported Michael Heseltine against Murdoch's wishes. Stelzer had a ringside seat at the time and, as Neil recorded, the incident was "a significant milestone on the long road to divorce with Rupert".
So tell us another one, Irwin - you know, the one about Prime Minister Gordon Brown consulting you because he loves shooting the breeze and not because you are Murdoch's man. "I don't kid myself. But there's more to it than that. I'm one of the only people who tells him he's wrong - I like to think he finds some value in our discussions even if only to sharpen his own arguments."
Enough, Irwin, enough. Let's look now at what that interview means for Brown in the coming couple of years. It is clear that Murdoch, who initially viewed Conservative leader David Cameron as "a lightweight toff", has had a re-think following his conference speech. Similarly, he has begun to re-evaluate Brown in the light of what Stelzer called his "appalling blunder" by preparing everyone for an election and then backing down.
Then there is the little matter of The Sun's strident campaign to secure a referendum on the European Union treaty. That will be a factor, said Stelzer.
To prove the point, The Sun carried a page lead yesterday, approvingly quoting Labour MP Gisela Stuart after she accused Brown of dishonesty (in an op-ed piece she wrote in Monday's Evening Standard).
Indeed, there is growing evidence that all of Murdoch's papers are adopting an increasingly hostile stance towards Brown's government. The Sunday Times lamented the anti-aspirational nature of the capital gains tax proposals while suggesting, albeit tentatively, that Cameron might be moving in the right direction. The Times weighed in yesterday with a leading article that accused the Chancellor of being crude and negligent in fashioning the reforms. For good measure, its second leader then took the Foreign Secretary to task over the EU treaty.
This is the first trickle in what looks likely to be a drip-drip-drip campaign of hostility from Murdoch's papers towards the Government over the next two years leading up to the next election.
Some Labour politicians may be lured into thinking that Stelzer's Guardian interview amounts to nothing more than a warning shot. If so, they are wrong. In fact, he was delivering a transparent public message to Brown. And he wasn't joking.
