Why there's room for an upmarket Times

What is Rupert Murdoch up to in appointing Robert Thomson to edit a re-invigorated Times?

Is he, as some tentatively have suggested, aiming to restyle the Old Thunderer in the image of a truly great European daily newspaper - like Le Monde, Liberation or El Pais? Or perhaps a British version of the International Herald Tribune? It may sound absurd but that is what some observers of the Media Village - not all of them silly-billies by any means - believe may be behind the appointment of the high-toned, intellectual, ex Financial Times superstar Thomson.

Is there room for such an upmarket paper? I differ from Alexander Chancellor's argument, which appeared in these pages last week, that the FT is already catering sufficiently for that end of the market and that it would inevitably lead to a "rather dull" Times. Some of us found the pre-Thomson Times pretty dull and often lacking the sharp news treatment of its great rival The Daily Telegraph.

I believe there is a role for the kind of national daily paper the impressive Thomson is talking about. A "fact-based" newspaper doesn't have to be modelled on the Financial Times or, for that matter, Le Monde.

It could return British journalism to some of the outstanding reporting we have missed for too long; and it could seek to answer the charge made frequently by the European press that British newspapers are absurdly insular in their treatment - and objective reporting - of European life.

When Murdoch stepped into Thomson's life one night in New York and asked him to succeed Peter Stothard, it is clear that Thomson found the Murdoch handshake irresistible. But that does not mean he is naive about the challenge.

He knows Murdoch is one of the shrewdest media owners on earth. But Thomson is no fool himself and if his responses to questioning seem evasive at present, who can blame him?

Where I would be more worried for Thomson is in his coverage of the euro. Unlike his proprietor, Thomson is said, by those who know him closely, to be pro-European and intellectually in favour of joining the currency. Yet, the paper's editorial on Friday 17 May in effect called for the abandonment of any thought of a referendum for another four years. "A wild dash for entry," the editorial argued, "would be to repeat in spades the major mistakes of recent British economic history."

Eight days later on Saturday, he insisted on the BBC's Today programme that: "There is no 'keep-the-pound permanently' policy at The Times." And he added, quite sharply, that there was no "ideological reason" why his paper could not support the euro (a point, he reminded the radio audience "which will dismay some people"). Among those people, one assumes, will be two of his foremost columnists, Anatole Kaletsky and Peter Riddell, who are thought to be digging their heels in against any thought of a shift in policy. Behind the "wait and see, never say never" position lies sharpening tensions among the paper's top writers. So would Murdoch be upset if The Times came out in support of the euro? Thomson's reply: "No, he wouldn't. Of course he'd be upset if we weren't able to make our case logically. What I suspect Murdoch doesn't like is inconsistency."

Well, that is, or might turn out to be, fighting talk. Thomson needs to remember that Murdoch tends to become strongly attracted to "unusual" journalists, not least because, like Lord Beaverbrook, the great newspaper tycoons are drawn to something and someone different.

But the attractiveness of that "something different" would wear thin in the face of serious policy differences. Murdoch still wants The Times to outflank and outsell The Daily Telegraph. And he wants that much more than he wants Britain to join the euro.