Does the acquisition of PoliticsHome by Lord Ashcroft threaten the website's impartiality? Many on the liberal left think it does. Following the departure of the Observer columnist Andrew Rawnsley as editor-in-chief, at least 21 left-leaning figures have resigned from the site's panel of 100 Westminster insiders.
The group resignation letter on Liberal Conspiracy cited concerns that the sale of a controlling stake in PoliticsHome to Ashcroft, deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, was incompatible with the site's non-partisan stance.
The first point to make is that Ashcroft is surely self-interested enough to recognise that if he undermines the site's independence PoliticsHome will lose all credibility.
Total Politics, the magazine part-owned by Ashcroft, hasn't degenerated into a right-wing Pravda; that suggests the billionaire may be capable of separating his commercial interests from his political interests. The Labour MP Denis MacShane was one of those who resigned from the PoliticsHome panel, but he appears content to sit on the Total Politics editorial board.
Yet even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Ashcroft intends to transform the site into a partisan operation, there is little scope for him to do so. PoliticsHome is dominated by news aggregation and polling and currently features no opinionated commentary. Could this change under Ashcroft's ownership? Perhaps, but let's wait and see.
There's no evidence that the permanent involvement of the conservative Stephan Shakespeare, until recently sole owner of PoliticsHome, has compromised the site's impartiality. Certainly in my time at PoliticsHome (I worked there before joining the NS), I saw nothing to suggest that Shakespeare exercised Richard Desmond-style control. His links to the Conservative Party as Jeffrey Archer's former spokesman and as a former Tory election candidate were never disguised.
The backlash from the left is based largely on two factors. First, a supposition that Rawnsley's decision to resign means he must know something we don't. And second, a general disdain for Ashcroft, because of the millions he pours into marginal constituencies and his failure to clarify his tax status.
These are reasonable grievances against Ashcroft and they're ones I share, but it's a different argument. Is there a risk that PoliticsHome could acquire a subtle bias by giving less weight to stories that are likely to upset or anger Ashcroft? There is, but it's a risk greatly increased by the decision of so many on the left to sever their ties with the site.