The 100 Most Influential Lefties 100-51

For the third year running the Telegraph are publishing the Top 100 Most Influential People on the Left list. The first of two parts is published today HERE.

It was compiled by a panel of people on the left, including one MP, two bloggers, three journalists and two former advisers. Brian Brivati and I then put it all together. Tomorrow, in the printed paper, there will be an article explaining our thinking and the rankings of the Top 50. Well, it's a hard job, and someone's got to do it...

What's Good for the Goose...

Did you hear Radio 5 Live this morning? Phil Williams, the Breakfast show host, was talking about Gordon Brown and Michelle Obama.

"What did you make of Gordon Brown holding hands with Michelle Obama then? There's a lot of men in the world would've liked to be in THAT position!"

The feminists are out in full cry, accusing his of sexism and worse. Except they're not, because he never said it. But Gaby Logan, on her show later this morning, did say...

"What did you make of Obama holding hands with Sarah Brown then? There's a lot of women in the world would've liked to be in THAT position!"

The truth is that if Phil Williams HAD made the comment above he would have been traduced by the politically correct, dungaree wearing lobby. But when a female presenter says something like that no one bats an eyelid.

Just sayin', like.

Hattip: Biased BBC

Labour MP Lose Sex Discrimination Tribunal

Stephen Hesford resigned as a PPS at the Law Officers' Department this week, over the refusal of Baroness Scotland to resign. Today's News of the World provides a rather contrasting picture of this 'man of principle'. (sadly the story doesn't seem to be online)

One of his staff has taken him to an industrial tribunal after she was sacked as his constituency press officer. Mr Hesford failed to respond to her allegations of sex discrimination due to what he termed his "heavy workload". He was found guilty in his absence and has now launched an appeal. He now stands accused of trying to drag out the proceedings. A friend of his former staffer, Jacqueline Snell, told the NOTW...

He's doing everything in his power to delay these proceedings and drag them out. He knows her background and he knows that she cannot afford to keep fighting.

Those of us who have witnessed Mr Hesford's tactics in fighting Esther McVey would, I am sure, happily start a fighting fund for Ms Snell if her finances proved to be an insurmountable barrier.

This isn't the first time Mr Hesford has been in trouble. In 1997 he was was reprimanded for failing to turn up for a court case.

If there's one result I am looking forward to on election night, it's hearing that Esther McVey has won. She's going to be an absolute star in Parliament.

Should Marr Have Asked THAT Question?

It's not often I am left open mouthed by an interviewer's question, but Andrew Marr achieved it this morning when he asked Gordon Brown directly about the rumours that he is taking "prescription drugs such as painkillers". UPDATE: The actual quote was: "A lot of people use prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through, are you one of those people?"

Brown simply replied "No" and then rambled about how he has coped with his eye problems. He was clearly furious Marr had had the temerity to ask such a question. Was he right to be furious?

I'd say not. The PM's state of health is a legitimate matter for concern. Marr has heard the same rumours as the rest of us and clearly felt there was a possibility that the rumours might have some validity. Unfortunately the Prime Minister's behaviour throughout the interview would have done nothing to dispel the rumours.

Marr proved something to a lot of sceptics this morning. That he has some big, fat, hairy ones.

What's the betting Brown refuses to be interviewed by him again?

Brown's Own Little World

Brown's mendacity knows no bounds. On Andrew Marr, he just attributed the fact that there have been fewer mortgage defaults than in the 1991 recession to the success of his Mortgage Renegotiation Scheme. What a shame Andrew Marr didn't reveal the fact that this "successful" scheme has helped just eight families at the last count. Eight! Brown lives in his own world where every scheme he launches is a massive success. Luckily, people see through it.

UPDATE: I've compared Brown to Nixon before. He is sweating so profusely during his Marr interview that he looks like Nixon in the 1960 debate!

UPDATE: Marr: What's your biggest mistake?
Brown: Not to move faster on my fairness agenda.

YeGods. He had enough to choose from yet still resorts to hubris.

What a terrible interview. Labour MPs will be mutinous. Well, actually they won't. They haven't got the balls.

A Date For Your Diary

I hope those of you who are attending this year's Conservative Conference will come along to a little party I am throwing on the Wednesday evening. I've lined up a couple of special guests, who I will tell you about nearer the time.

I have now created a Facebook Group for the event. Please do sign up if you intend coming. Click HERE.

Why Do Candidates Work in Public Affairs?

According to The Times this morning, you'd think lobbyists were akin to child molesters. Not surprising really considering the article was written by Tom Baldwin, who, it seems, has returned to these shores from America.

Baldwin thinks it a scandal that 28 - yes, all of 28 - Tory candidates are in some way involved in the world of public affairs and lobbying. Here's the intro to his "story"...

Dozens of Conservative parliamentary candidates are working in the lobbying industry that seeks to influence their party’s leadership.

Dozens? Well, strictly speaking 28 does include more than one dozen. But quite why this should be a front page story is something I will leave to The Times editor to justify. If lobbying were illegal, there might be a point to it, but it isn't. And if any of the 28 were being secretive about their employment, the prominence given to the story might be understandable. But so far as I can see, all those working for consultants declare their employment through the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) and in turn declare who their clients are. And the fact is that many Labour and LibDem PPCs also work in the same line of work.

The implication of the Times article is that candidates should be banned from working in public affairs. And according to Baldwin there is something deeply fishy in the fact that selected candidates do end up in public affairs. He writes...

More than a quarter got their jobs after being selected to fight seats.

So that would be a total of, er, 8. The reason that people do seek work in public affairs after they are selected is that they often find it difficult to find a job where there is an understanding that they need to spend one or two days a week in their constituencies. So when people get selected they often give up a 5 day a week job for a 3-4 day a week job in lobbying as they know that public affairs consultants will understand why they need to do that. There's nothing sinister in it, as long as it is all transparent.

What really gets me, though, is the implication that it is really only Conservatives who do this. Baldwin writes...

Only seven Labour and three Liberal Democrat prospective candidates with realistic hopes of victory have jobs in public affairs or communications.

That is something which is so patently wrong as to defy belief. But of course he doesn't define what "realistic hopes" means. If he looked at the Top 100 Labour, Tory & LibDem marginals he'd get a very different picture. It is probably the case that Baldwin has probably analysed the Top 150 most likely Tory wins, but only looked at a couple of dozen Labour seats and fewer LibDem seats.

Perhaps my readers might like to help identify Labour & LibDem PPCs who work in public affairs, so we can see just how accurate Baldwin's claims are.

Has the Telegraph Mole Donated His Fee to Charity?

I don't mind admitting that the Telegraph book revelation this morning was slightly less, er, impactful than had been expected. The whole thing seems to be covering old ground. Nothing wrong with that, but if the biggest point of interest is that the leaker was a serving soldier, it's not quite the big deal putting the book out under a massive embargo would imply.

However, it's interesting to read the man's motives, which will prove embarrassing to the government.

Workers who processed the MPs’ claims included serving soldiers, who were moonlighting between tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan to earn extra cash for body armour and other vital equipment.

The soldiers were furious when they saw what MPs, including the Prime Minister, were claiming for and their anger convinced one of their civilian colleagues that taxpayers had a right to know how their money was being spent. The mole who leaked the data has told his story for the first time, in the hope that it will shame the Government into finally supplying the right equipment for the thousands of soldiers risking their lives in Afghanistan.

“It’s not easy to watch footage on the television news of a coffin draped in a Union Jack and then come in to work the next day and see on your computer screen what MPs are taking for themselves,” he said.

“Hearing from the serving soldiers, about how they were having to work there to earn enough money to buy themselves decent equipment, while the MPs could find public money to buy themselves all sorts of extravagances, only added to the feeling that the public should know what was going on.

“That helped tip the balance in the decision over whether I should or should not leak the expenses data.”

One of the expenses that particularly enraged staff was Gordon Brown’s claim for a Sky TV sports package, which cost £36 per month.

But it was the position of the soldiers, who had used their annual leave to find temporary work as security guards, that caused the most outrage. “As the days progressed the soldiers joined in the conversations and became as angry as those doing the editing,” the mole said.

“Everyone in that room was of the same mind. This was our money and these were our employees, effectively, but no one could hold them to account.

“Pretty much everyone working in that room was being paid a pittance to do their job. Meanwhile the MPs were being well paid and claiming a fortune on their expenses, yet what have they done for us in the last 10 years?

“That was why I leaked the information: because the British public deserves better.”

Indeed it does. I stick to the view that the mole performed a public service by leaking this to the Daily Telegraph, and the Telegraph were right to publish, even if some of the stories were reported in an unfair and lurid manner. Many MPs were correctly banged to rights, but there were quite a few innocent victims too. I am thinking mainly of those MPs who weren't mentioned but who were all tarred with the same brush.

So, yes, the mole did the right think and performed a public service, but we should also remember that he was paid handsomely for the information. The actual figure has never been revealed, but the sum of £70,000 has been mentioned. UPDATE: It has been confirmed that he was, in fact, paid £110,000.

I would like to think that bearing in mind what he says about his motivations, he has donated this money to Help for Heroes.

You can order the Telegraph book HERE.

Shriti to Head for Brussels?

What money on Shriti Vadera succeeding Baroness Ashton as Britain's Commissioner in Brussels? Just askin'...

With her legendary diplomatic skills she would make Margaret Thatcher's handbag look positively weak...

Baker Denies Rumour He's Quitting Parliament

I had decided not to blog this, but seeing that Tim Montgomerie has twittered it, here goes. This morning I was told by two sources that LibDem MP Norman Baker will stand down from Parliament at the next election. One was a Tory source and one was a LibDem source. I put it to a senior LibDem spokesman who checked it out with Baker himself. He described the reports as "entirely fabricated". That seemed pretty categoric to me so I didn't run it.

That's probably why I am not a journalist!

ConservativeHome Guarantees Its Independence

I never thought I would see the day when The Times would have a leader on the subject of the future of a single blog. But it did this morning, when it questioned the future of ConservativeHome under the ownership of Lord Ashcroft. Tim Montgomerie has penned a response HERE, which contains some interesting commitments to his site's editorial independence.

What a pity it is that a handful of left of centre politicians and commentators have taken their bat and ball home from PoliticsHome. As others have said, wouldn't it have been better to at least give the site the benefit of doubt and see how it panned out? After all, the site contains no comment, merely news aggregation.

Perhaps in three months time they might like to consider whether they acted in haste.

Labour Scandal Book Published Tomorrow

I'm told that tomorrow morning a new book will be published and be serialised by a national newspaper which won't make happy reading for the Labour Party. Booksellers have been told to expect embargoed copies tomorrow morning. Transworld are the publishers.

The last time a political book was published like this was when Edwina Currie published her diaries and serialised them in The Times. There was total secrecy in advance of publication. It came out on the Saturday before the Tory conference and completely dominated the event. It seems the same is set to happen to Labour tomorrow.

I have been unable to find out any further details. Maybe you know more...

It Shouldn't Happen to a Prime Minister: Part 94

Whether Gordon Brown actually was snubbed by Barack Obama doesn't really matter. Everyone thinks he was. Clearly the release of the Lockerbie bomber is going to take some time to get over. But it's not just that. Obama's people probably take the view that Brown isn't much longer for this political world and is of little significance.

It would never have happened to Tony Blair, though, would it?

I look forward to reading James Macintyre's thoughts on this. Bearing in mind how crap his US sources have been in the past (cf Obama's view of Cameron) they should make for entertaining reading.

Sweet FA

Driving to the station this morning, I could hardly believe my ears. Did you know that the taxpayer is forking out £40 million a year to football? Me neither. It's channelled through the FA and the Football Foundation to pay for initiatives in grassroots football. The government is threatening the withhold it unless the three football organisations (FA, Football League and the Premier League) overcome their mutual hostility and start to work together.

I question why the taxpayer is providing any money in the first place. Why not instead impose a levy of £2 million a year on any club in the Premier League. That's the equivalent of the annual wages of one Premier League player.

So, another £40 million off public borrowing. Maybe a pinprick, but you know what they say about a lot of little pinpricks...

Behind the Scenes at LBC

Sorry for the lack of posting since lunchtime. When you get a call to say "can you present our evening show tonight?" from a nationally renowned broadcaster it kind of throws your schedule.

A few weeks ago I did a tryout for LBC to present a show with Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. We spent forty minutes in a tiny studio doing a mock show. To be honest I wasn't sure that it went very well. Anyway, something must have sparked.

I had an important meeting this afternoon to decide on which new titles to commission for Biteback Publishing so I didn't get to LBC until just after 5, so there were only two hours to prepare. We decided on the subjects and then I had to record a couple of trailers and do a live taster on James Maxx's drivetime show. Having not eaten since breakfast I popped out into Leicester Square to get something to keep my energy levels up - not good for the diet!

In the last hour we decided to cover the subject of assisted suicide - way outside my comfort zone. They had lined up MS sufferer Deborah Purdy to talk about why the law needs to be clarified. I suggested getting Nadine Dorries on to put the counter point of view.

And before I knew it, it was time to go into the studio. One and a half minutes to get my papers sorted out and off we went. No script. Talk about being thrown in at the deep end. We spent the first 45 minutes talking about the LibDems and asking listeners: "What's the point of the LibDems?" Mike Smithson from PoliticalBetting.com came on and was fairly scathing about the conference and LibDem strategy against the Tories, as was virtually every caller with the exception of the ever loyal Mark Thompson who called in having just got home from Bournemouth. People really don't like Vince Cable's mansion tax.

In the second hour we did the regular Wednesday night panel with guests Will Straw, Baroness Ludford MEP and James Broeknshire MEP. We had a lot of callers and talked about Baroness Scotland, Gordon Brown and climate change. The hour went by very quickly indeed.

In the final hour we talked about assisted suicide, following today's clarification of existing law by the DPP. I hope people felt I treated it with the sensitivity it merited. I interviewed Debbie Purdy, the MS sufferer who had forced the law to clarified. She was a brilliant interviewee and rather inspirational, I felt. I then interviewed Nadine Dorries who thinks the law should remain as it is. She pointed out the dangers of the state condoning assisted suicide. We had quite an abrasive interview although she remained very calm. I think she felt I had given her a bit of a hard ride.

The last part of the show was the stickiest as there was a problem with the phones so I had to extemporise like mad. But I think I just about pulled it off.

And before I knew it, it was all over. I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed it. To be honest I felt totally at home. A professional radio presenter friend of mine twittered me afterwards and said...

That was the most laid back debut I've ever heard. You're a natural.

That meant a lot. But it was the text from the LBC MD which I was dreading. But I needn't have. It ended with the words.

Consider yourself part of the LBC team.

Job done!

Debuting Tonight on LBC from 7.15-10pm

Tonight I will be presenting a three hour phone in show on LBC 97.3 (and DAB throughout the country), standing in for Petrie Hosken from 7.15-10pm. It's my debut on the station, so keep your fingers crossed for me. It won't be quite as loose and radical as my Play Radio Show was, but we'll be talking about the hot issues of the day and from 8-9 we have the weekly 'Parliament' slot with political representatives from the three parties.

UPDATE: Just to give you an update on the PlayRadio Show. I am told that the station has gone into administration, so I am afraid it won't be returning. A great shame as it will a hugely innovative station.

If you have time to listen on 97.3 FM, you'd be very welcome indeed, and do feel free to call in on 0845 60 60 973 or text 84850. You can also listen on the LBC website HERE.

UPDATE: From 7.15 to 8 we'll be asking "What's the point of the Liberal Democrats?" I'll be talking to Mike Smithson and taking calls from listeners

From 8-9 it's the Parliament Panel with guests James Brokenshire MP, Will Straw and Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP. Subjects include the LibDem Conference, Gordon Brown's award, Baroness Scotland and much else.

From 9-10 we'll be talking about assisted suicide. I'll be interviewing MS sufferer Debbie Purdy, the woman whose legal case brought about a clarification of the law.

And at 10pm I shall either feel very depressed or slightly euphoric...

Hesford Deals Further Blow to Baroness Scotland

I hesitate to praise the Labour MP Stephen Hesford, for fear of what his Tory opponent Esther McVey might do to me, but his resignation as a government PPS in the law officers department over the Prime Minister's decision to retain the services of Baroness Scotland is an honourable one. What a shame the Attorney General herself doesn't seem to have the same sense of honour. But there's still time...

Just When Gordon Thought It Was Safe

Just when the World Statesman of the Year (no, really) thought his leadership was safe, up pops that nice, helpful Charles Clarke again to stick the knife in. In an interview with the Evening Standard he suggests that Gordon Brown should resign, citing "ill health" as his reason. This would be the only way to save the Labour Party from 15 years in the wilderness.

It's all kicking off HERE.

Miliband: Euro Referendum is "Extremist"

So, there we have it. David Miliband thinks it is "extremist" to want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about New Labour's moral bankruptcy?

UPDATE: Those who are asking where this came from should read the front page of today's Telegraph.

The Very Worst Kind of Gesture Politics

I've just got home from the LibDems to read of the row that has been developing of the purchase of 57% of ConservativeHome and PoliticsHome by Lord Ashcroft. Let's start with a declaration of interest. Lord Ashcroft owns 25% of my company Biteback Media, which publishes Total Politics, and is the 85% owner of Biteback Publishing. And also for the record, I haven't talked to Michael Ashcroft, Tim Montgomerie or Stephan Shakespeare before writing this.

Today Andrew Rawnsley resigned from PoliticsHome. Funny, I thought he already had. He doesn't seem to have written a word on the site for three months. Read his reasons HERE. Stephan Shakespeare responded with THIS statement. Since then various left of centre personalities have publicy resigned from the PoliticsHome panel. Their reasoning is that they think PoliticsHome will become a tool of the right.

Have they not noticed that it has been owned and run by Stephan Shakespeare, an avowed Tory, since its inception in 2008? The same Stephan Shakespeare who was behind 18 Doughty Street? He assured the panel at the time the site would be politically neutral and it has been.

I experienced these very same accusations when I started Total Politics. People on the left (understandably) treated my assurances that it would be politically neutral with some scepticism. After all, if Dale and Ashcroft were involved it stands to reason doesn't it, that it would be biased? Except, no it doesn't. No one raises those accusations now. Even Kevin Maguire has publicly said that he can detect no right wing bias in the magazine. And I would challenge anyone else to. And that's for two reasons. Firstly, we have a politically balanced editorial staff who have striven to ensure that no accusation of partisanship can be levelled. And secondly, because Michael Ashcroft has better things to do that peer over the editor's shoulder. Ask Sarah Mackinlay or Ben Duckworth if they have ever been influenced by Michael Ashcroft. In fact I don't think either of them have ever clapped eyes on him, let alone had a conversation with him. Ask Sarah or Ben if I have ever tried to influence their editorial direction.

PoliticsHome is a new service - a news aggregator. It doesn't have much of its own original content.

So to those who have resigned from the PoliticsHome Panel I ask this question: what makes you think Lord Ashcroft would want to influence the editorial direction of PoliticsHome when it is transparently clear that he has never done it with Total Politics? To Tom Harris, I say: why are you happy to write for Total Politics but then resign from the PoliticsHome panel? To Denis MacShane, I say, why are you happy to be on the Total Politics editorial board, but have resigned from the PH panel?

What you are doing is playing the very sort of politics you accuse the right of playing. That's your perogative, of course, but it makes you all look damn silly and rather like sheep who are quite happy to be herded by the likes of Sunny Hundal (who was also happy to write for Total Politics - perhaps he'd like to return the cheque...). I'd expect the likes of Tom Watson to behave in this partisan way, but I'm disappointed that Catherine Mayer, Matthew Taylor and Lynne Featherstone appear to have fallen for it too. Should I now boycott the RSA panel I am speaking at on Thursday lunchtime because Matthew Taylor has politicised his position as its director? No. Because I wouldn't be so pathetic.

But hey, you know what, it's a free country. I look forward to PoliticsHome proving that it has the integrity and self belief to continue with its stated mission. And when it does, those who have indulged in the politics of the school playing field can feel slightly ashamed.

And I say again: why is being owned 57% by the Conservative Lord Ashcroft any different to being 100% owned by the Conservative Stephan Shakespeare? Cos I am buggered if I know.

PS Cue stream of comments saying Dale's an Ashcroft lackey. Water. Duck's. Back.