Fidesz

Rupert Murdoch owns too many newspapers

Labour Party

Rupert Murdoch owns too many newspapers. This was the uncompromising message from the Shadow Culture Secretary Harriet Harman at the Westminster Media Forum yesterday as reported in the Guardian.

It’s not solely a British problem. Here in the European Parliament we have debated media pluralism, or plurality as we call it in the UK, on many occasions. One of the first debates after the 2009 European elections was about Silvio Berlusconi’s vast and often unedifying media empire. The vote on the resolution went narrowly against the appalling Berlusconi to the surprise of many on the centre right who wrongly foresaw an easy victory for their side.

The media pluralism question raised its head again during the Hungarian EU Presidency. Prime Minister Viktor Orban of the right wing Fidesz Party sought to change the country’s constitution in a number of ways, including curtailing the freedom of the country’s press and media outlets.

Control of the media, specifically media plurality, is a polarised issue in the European Parliament. Given that much of the business here is conducted on the basis of consensus and the rough and tumble of robust debate so strong in Britain is largely lacking in the European Parliament, this is an unusual phenomenon. The only conclusion I can draw from the way parties of the right and centre-right in the European Parliament have rallied round to defend mass ownership of the media is that they benefit from such an arrangement. Berlusconi as Prime Minister of Italy and media magnate was very much to the right as are most owners of newspapers and television.

Harriet Harman is right when she says, “Murdoch owns too many newspapers and had it not been for the phone-hacking scandal the government would have waved through his bid to take control of the whole of BskyB. Both Ofcom and Leveson are looking at ownership . It is clear that there needs to be change.”

This is very welcome news and I for one will be following the progress of the forthcoming Communications Act closely. As Harriet said yesterday, it will be “an opportunity to take action to deal with difficult, historical problems which have been unaddressed to too long.”

Meanwhile the debate on media pluralism continues in the European Parliament. Control of the media is now more than a national issue. Media spans borders and what happens in one European country affects another. I do not wish to see the mauling received by the Labour Party before the 1992 general election happen anywhere else. Neil Kinnock was vilified by the Murdoch press because he bravely committed Labour to tackling media ownership were it to form a government. Tony Blair later felt he needed to make it up to Murdoch prior to the 1997 election.

This is not the way the UK should be conducting its relations with the media. Political parties should never feel they have to be nice to an all-powerful media baron and they should never feel any pressure to compromise their principles and beliefs to get support from such a quarter. The UK and Europe as a whole needs a free and fair press and media. It’s one of the best ways of securing our democracy.

Hungarian Premier Orban Polarises the European Parliament

Labour Party

The European Parliament has just wrapped up a debate on the political situation in Hungary following the European Commission’s commencement of infringement proceedings a few days ago against Hungary’s right-wing Fidesz government. 

The Commission is taking action against three specific violations by Viktor Orban’s administration:

  • Risking the independence of the Hungarian Central Bank
  • Lowering the age at which judges and prosecutors retire
  • Undermining the independence of the data protection ombudsman in Hungary

This action by the European Commission could ultimately lead to loss of Hungary’s voting rights in the EU under Article 7 of EU treaty law. According to the Daily Telegraph, Lars Christensen from Danske Bank has said: “The EU is not bluffing. It will let Hungary go over the edge to make the point the EU countries must play by the rules.”

This is not, however, quite how Mr Orban sees it. Having been invited to speak in the European Parliament debate today – an unusual step which I think demonstrates a high level of fairness on the part of the Parliament – Orban was typically gung ho. An ardent anti-communist, he made sure we all knew that Hungary was the last iron-curtain country to get rid of its Stalinist constitution. The point being that it was Orban who did the deed.

Orban further maintained that the repressive measures brought in by his government were needed to sort out the economic mess he inherited, while claiming the country had also been on the verge of social collapse.

Following Orban, the European Parliament split on Party lines. The Socialist and Democrat, Liberal and Green Groups were passionately against Orban, seeing his government as anti-democratic, restricting fundamental freedoms. It was even suggested that the Parliament send a delegation to Hungary to find out why the homeless, the poor and vulnerable, and those in need of social care, not to mention intellectuals and free thinkers, were so afraid of Orban and his government.

The other side of the House, the European People’s Party (EPP), the European Conservatives and Reformists (the Tories’ group) and the ultra-right Europe for Freedom and Democracy took a diametrically opposite view. The EPP Leader Joseph Daul could hardly have more pro-Orban.

Such a very real political division is rare in the European Parliament. The Parties generally seek consensus, while EU matters quite often raise little controversy. A strong political debate therefore came as a breath of fresh air, one which should happen more often. A Parliament is a political institution and must have the oxygen of political disagreement and debate to be credible and effective.

Hungary’s right-wing Fidesz Government dilutes Democracy

Labour Party

As Britain gets nearer to the referendum on making our voting system fairer and improving democratic accountability, it seems odd, to say the least, that another EU country is on the verge of diluting its own democracy. Yet this is exactly what the right-wing Hungarian government, where the ruling Fidesz Party has over two thirds of the seats in the Hungarian parliament, is seeking to do with its bizarre proposal that mothers with small children should have extra votes in elections. 

The “Guardian” reported today that the rationale, if it can be called such a thing, for this curious change is that 20 percent of society are children, a considerable group who are left out of representation. Hungarian MEP Jozsef Szajer, who is also a senior Fidesz official, tells us that “The interests of these future generations are not represented in decision making.”

Could this lack of voting rights be because young children are not at a stage in their educational development when they can exercise the franchise? Not according to Mr Szajer, who goes on to say, “We know at first it seems an unusual idea, but in the 50s it was unusual to give votes to black people; 100 years ago it was unusual to give votes to women.”  

But it’s not the children who will get the vote under the Fidesz proposals but their parents, an idea first mooted by American demographer Paul Demeny. He put forward a system in 1986 where each parent is given half a vote for each child, a pretty barmy concept by anyone’s standards. The fact that no country has taken up Demeny’s ideas speaks volumes. It’s also interesting that Fidesz initially wanted the new voting rights to be enshrined in the Hungarian constitution but have now backtracked and have, instead, decided to introduce mere legislation.

To make it even worse, the Fidesz plans have sparked fears that the Roma may get increased voting rights. Well, even Fidesz can’t have it all, it seems. Hoist by their own petard is a phrase which comes to mind.  

You would have thought the attempt by the Fidesz government to muzzle the media was bad enough. Clearly not. I wonder what will come next…………..