Guardian journalists in revolt over ‘miserable' website redesign
The newspaper this month rolled out a new app and homepage, which it said would help readers 'stay informed without feeling overwhelmed'.
But journalists have complained that the new format prioritises international stories and features at the expense of UK news, leaving readers in the dark and staff 'miserable'.
In an email to editors, reporters wrote: 'We'd like to point out that aside from the handful of UK news stories which are given a prominent front page slot, though often for a brief period of time, the rest of our stories are simply getting lost.
'There is arguably a correlation between the decimation of local news and the rise of Reform – we worry that taking the focus off UK news makes it harder for us to do exactly this kind of reporting there is currently such a market for.'
They added: 'And in turn, not being read, thus not having impact, is miserable! Please understand how demotivating and demoralising this is.'
A Guardian spokesman said: 'The recent redesign has in fact increased the amount of news shown on the homepage and it has been well received by readers, with early data demonstrating they are spending significantly longer on the homepage, with a broader range of articles being read.
'We continue to be committed to in-depth coverage of the UK – it remains our biggest edition and we now have more regional reporters across the UK than ever before.'
While website redesigns often prove controversial at first, the backlash underscores tensions between Guardian staff and management over its direction.
The newspaper has been investing heavily to expand in the US and Australia, while in 2023 it launched a dedicated Europe edition.
In a memo to staff on Friday, Ms Viner said: 'We have found new audiences by delivering fantastic journalism across the world, which, in turn, has led to a significant growth in our reader revenue. That global strategy has allowed us to invest in Britain and abroad.'
But bosses are now battling to win journalists over to the strategy, with senior editors summoned to a two-day off-site meeting this week. A separate team has been assembled on a longer-term project to explore ways to 'future-proof' the organisation.
Sources close to The Guardian insisted its strategy was working, with revenues hitting a record £275m last year while the company trimmed its cash outflows from £37m to less than £25m.
Revenues from outside the UK are understood to have topped £100m, while 70pc come from digital.
The website saga has reignited discontent about Ms Viner in the aftermath of the sale of The Observer to Tortoise, a start-up run by former BBC News boss James Harding.
Journalists mounted a vocal campaign against the sale of the world's oldest Sunday newspaper, which they branded a 'betrayal'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reeves accused of ‘punishing families' with inheritance tax raid – that still ‘won't fill Labour's blackhole'
Rachel Reeves has been accused of 'coming for your family's future' with a possible inheritance tax raid – but a former Treasury adviser has warned the changes still won't be enough to fill the £50bn black hole. Officials are thought to be looking at scrapping the 'seven-year rule' - which means that no tax is due on any gifts you give if you live for seven years after giving them - to help address the UK's multi-billion-pound shortfall left by Labour U-turns, higher borrowing and sluggish economic growth. It comes just days after the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr) piled pressure on the chancellor to come up with solutions ahead of her budget in the autumn. But Jonathan Portes, a former Treasury adviser and professor of economics and public policy at King's College London who supports the idea of inheritance tax reform, told The Independent such changes would 'certainly not raise tens of billions of pounds, or anything like it'. Tory shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride accused Labour of punishing working families to 'fund their failure', while leading analysts at Hargreaves Lansdown warned Labour may 'come to regret' making detailed changes to inheritance tax as it could hamper efforts to boost economic growth. Inheritance tax is paid when a person's estate is worth more than £325,000 when they die and is seen by many as a form of wealth tax in all but name. Under current UK rules, gifts made more than seven years before a person's death are exempt from inheritance tax. Money given less than three years before is taxed at the full inheritance tax rate of 40 per cent, while gifts given between seven and three years have a 'taper relief' tax, between eight and 32 per cent. While it is understood that no decisions have yet been taken, among the reported measures under consideration is a potential lifetime cap on gifts to limit the amount of money people can donate outside of inheritance tax, as well as reviewing rules around the taper rate, sources told The Guardian, Responding to the reports, Mr Portes said: "Inheritance tax certainly needs reform – it is too easy for very rich people with good tax advice to avoid, and it is welcome HMT [HM Treasury] is looking at this.' "More broadly, we need to tax relatively well-off older people more – whether during their lifetimes and on death. However, IHT reform will certainly not raise tens of billions or anything like it." Hitting out at the prospective measures, Sir Mel said Labour is 'coming for your family's future to fund their failure'. "Those who've worked hard, saved responsibly and hope to leave something behind shouldn't be punished to pay for Labour's economic black hole', he added. Tax experts have also raised alarm over the possible changes. With the government planning to levy inheritance tax on pensions from April 2027, Scott Gallacher, of wealth management firm Rowley Turton, warned that families with two children and an estate over £1m could be leaving more money to the chancellor than to either of their children. "The more children you have, the worse it looks. I recently told one client that, on his death, each of his four children would get just 15 per cent of his pension, while the chancellor would take 40 per cent', he said. Meanwhile, Rob Mansfield, an independent financial advisor at Rootes Wealth Management, said it could put people off from saving into their pensions. 'It's a double whammy if you're over the age of 75, as not only could you pay inheritance tax on the pension at 40 per cent, but the beneficiaries would then pay tax on any withdrawals at their marginal rates. "We need people to save more into their pensions, and taxing people for doing the right thing seems perverse." Former chancellor and businessman Nadhim Zahawi also took aim at the idea telling The Independent it could cause more wealthy individuals to leave the UK. He urged the Treasury to make further spending cuts rather than hiking taxes. 'If the chancellor wants a sure-fire way to endanger Britain's finances further, raising inheritance tax would be top of the list', he said. 'As a businessman, I know that top talent is leaving or staying away because they don't want their life's work stolen by a greedy government that won't wean itself off an addiction to wasting taxpayers' money through excessive spending.' Meanwhile, Sarah Coles, head of personal finance at Hargreaves Lansdown, said reforms 'would need to be balanced against the fact that, at the moment, these gifts allow for money to pass through the generations' - something which brings in taxes such as stamp duty and VAT when the money is spent. 'They also feed more money into the economy and boost economic activity', she said, warning that a change in the rules could 'stymie this flow of cash, which could have an impact on growth.'
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Labour can't hit ‘working people', so now they're after people who used to work
Labour has got itself into a cleft stick. Having come to power on a pledge of not raising taxes on 'working people,' in response to the opposition charge that it cares more about those who don't work, that raising money from the employed goes to help those who choose to be unemployed, Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are stuck. They are faced with a deficit of £50bn, give or take, for which they can no longer blame the Tories – that legacy was half. It's down to their failure to drive the economy, to achieve as they insist, 'faster and further' growth. It's just not happening, and, meanwhile, they have that hole to fill. They can't borrow extra because another reason that the chasm is so large is due to higher-than-expected borrowing costs. They dare not cut services because that would alienate their bedrock, and 'austerity' is what Tories do, not them. So, they cast around for tax targets. However, they can't alight on those who are putting in the hours and earning by aiming for income tax, employee national insurance, or VAT, because that would betray the election promise. So, they pick those who once worked. Inheritance tax, or IHT, or as it's popularly known, 'death duty,' is in their crosshairs. At present, inheritance tax is 40 per cent on estates above £325,000. But there is no limit on how much can be gifted to relatives tax-free if the giving is made seven years before someone dies. If it's within seven years, then a sliding scale or 'taper relief' applies. The rate drops each year, from 32 per cent to 8 per cent. Those who think they, or rather their inheritors, may be clobbered duly give it away in good time. The result is that inheritance tax is paid by only around four per cent of estates. In the eyes of Reeves and her advisors, that is too little. They know that people are sitting in homes that have soared in value and possess gold-plated pension pots, and they want some of it. They are looking at imposing a lifetime cap on how much can be gifted and/or changing the rules on taper relief. To ensure, in other words, that IHT is not so easily avoided and that the four per cent figure increases enormously. What's not to like? Politically, those affected are the better off, who are not natural Labour voters. It is not earned money, in the sense that property prices and pensions have risen since they ceased to work. It's fair game to grab it. Indeed, that is precisely what a source with knowledge of the work told the Guardian: 'It's hard to make sure these taxes don't end up with loopholes that undermine their purpose. But we are trying to work out what revenue might be raised and how to ensure it's a fair approach.' Labour has form for this. It's exactly what this government did to the farmers, except there it was farmers with land worth more than £3m. Reeves said this week she believed they 'should make a contribution.' These are weasel words. Reeves is ignoring the fact that they have already contributed, as presumably, she and her colleagues are doing so again, by claiming they are looking to be 'fair'. Apparently, one of the motivators is that they are not keen on a wealth tax as many of their supporters would like because that will serve to encourage the wealthy who can do so to leave the country, and there is evidence to suggest that is already happening, and would damage attempts to encourage greater investment to galvanise the economy. But how is this any different? It still sends the same signal that Labour sees the rich and not even that rich, as ripe for plundering. However it is dressed up and spun, the message is clear: you don't want to work and make some money under Labour, because they will get you. Ignoring the working and selecting those who worked may cleverly satisfy their political and fiscal ambitions, but it fools no one. Under Labour, it really does pay not to work.
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Rail bosses given ‘criminal offence' warning over fare dodger prosecutions
Train company bosses have been warned by the Government they could be breaking the law if they allow unqualified staff to prosecute alleged fare dodgers. A Department for Transport memo sent to operators states it is a 'criminal offence' to let non-lawyers act as prosecutors in court cases with passengers accused of not buying the correct ticket. The use of these lay prosecutors in those circumstances is not legal, the advice warns. There have been a series of high-profile cases in which passengers faced prosecution over small amounts of money. In one example, a passenger was threatened with court action for accidentally selecting a 16-25 railcard ticket when they held a 26-30 railcard, which provides the same discount. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander has written to train operators stating that 'any enforcement must be proportionate and not punish those making genuine mistakes'. She added: 'It is your responsibility to ensure that you are adequately protecting revenue in a cost effective but lawful way.' The Cabinet minister said she accepted the recommendations of regulator the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), which included creating consistency in how passengers are treated when ticket issues arise, and ensuring passengers have clearer information about tickets. Industry body the Rail Delivery Group has estimated that fare dodging creates £350 million to £400 million in lost revenue each year. A Government source said: 'Fare evasion costs the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds a year and dents confidence in our railway, so we're dead serious about tackling it. 'But enforcement must be proportionate. We can't have operators going after an older person faced with an incomprehensible system, or a student who has made an honest mistake. 'We're asking train companies to make sure they are prosecuting fare dodgers properly the first time. 'We'll set out our full response to the ORR report in due course, and Great British Railways will simplify fares and ticketing – restoring a railway the public can be proud of again.' The Government is bringing operators into public ownership as contracts expire. GBR is an upcoming public sector body that will oversee Britain's rail infrastructure and train operation.
