Mehdi Hasan: Dan Hodges. The Truth. And me.

I am tired of the online conspiracy theories and false accusations. This is my last comment on the subject.

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next man (did man really land on the moon? I mean, really?) but I'm sorry to have to tell you that Dan Hodges wasn't "axed", "pushed" or "forced out" from the New Statesman. By me -- or anyone else.

I'm repeatedly asked if I had him "sacked". I didn't even know he'd "quit". I'm bemused by the number of people who have bought into this nonsense. I mean, come on: this is Dan Hodges we're talking about here. This is the guy who gleefully admitted to being the brains behind an anti-AV poster that suggested electoral reform might lead to the deaths of newborn babies; who hubristically announced, four days ahead of the result of the Labour leadership election, that "David Miliband has won"; who grandly declared that "the next general secretary of the Labour Party is set to be Chris Lennie" less than a month before Lennie lost.

Lest we forget, here is a man who describes himself as a "neo-Blairite" and as the "Blairite cuckoo in the Miliband nest" but who has also written:

As no one in the Labour Party appears willing to admit their part in the plot to bring down Tony Blair, I'll cough. I was up to my neck in it.

I briefed and span. Placed stories. Sowed seeds of confusion and dissent.

(He "briefed and span" [sic] and "sowed seeds of confusion and dissent". Hmm, little has changed, I see...)

Let me deal with some of the conspiratorial claims that have been made, starting with the David Ray Griffin of "Hodgesgate", Guido Fawkes. His ludicrous blog post, published on 10 October and based on a briefing from (who else?) Dan himself, and written without the aid of New-Yorker-style fact checkers, claimed:

In the Thursday edition published during party conference Dan Hodges' article about the booing of Blair was spiked and didn't appear in the magazine

But Dan didn't have an article scheduled to run in the post-Labour-conference issue of the NS. Why? Because Dan was a guest blogger.

Guido continued:

Hodges was told he would be rested from the magazine for a few months

Um, er, how can I put this delicately for the conspiratorially-minded? Dan Hodges did not write for the magazine. He was a freelance, guest blogger -- one of several -- who contributed a sum total of four freelance articles to the magazine over the course of his 11-month-relationship with the NS. How do you "rest" someone from something they didn't do?

Other (non-Tory) allies of Dan included (surprise surprise!) disgruntled ex-employees of the NS such as Nick Cohen and Martin Bright. You couldn't make this stuff up.

But back to Dan Hodges. A few weeks ago, a shadow cabinet minister who has known him for several years turned to me and said:

When the time is right, Dan will screw you over. He is using you.

Who says the current Labour shadow cabinet doesn't contain visionaries? The anonymous (see what I did there, Dan?) shadow minister's prophesy turned out to be true.

Hodges, having published four blog posts in a row slamming Ed Miliband (and in the headlines, too!), decided to "flounce" off from the NS earlier this month. Asked by the New Statesman's deputy editor to perhaps consider writing the occasional blog post on an issue other than his monomaniacal obsession with the Labour leader -- a rather common and reasonable request made by commissioning editors across the land to their reporters, columnists and bloggers -- he claimed censorship, invented a conspiracy theory involving Ed Miliband himself (woo-hoo!) and migrated to that bastion of free speech, the Telegraph blogs, where he will now perform the role of the right's useful idiot and join Damian "Indulgence of Islam is harming society" Thompson.

Just to conclude, it is worth noting that Dan himself has backtracked on his original Guido-aided spin: asked by Paul Waugh on Twitter whether he was "really being axed by the @NewStatesman", he replied:

Is so

Yet, in his colour-filled blog post for the Telegraph, he wrote:

Unless he heard from me, he should take it I'd resigned.

And resign I did.

Yes, he resigned. Of his own volition. Without being pushed by Ed Miliband. Or Jon Bernstein. Or me.

It's boring, I know. But it's also true.

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

How the Conservatives woke up to the importance of the World Service

After risking its existence, George Osborne has woken up to the importance of the World Service. 

In a change to his usual programming, the George Osborne used the spending review to announce additional funding for the BBC World Service. This would have come as a surprise to anybody paying attention to the BBC, which has spent the last five years weathering the storms of austerity. First the license fee was frozen. Then the government announced that it would no longer be subsidising elderly fee payers or the World Service. Since then, dark clouds have hung over New Broadcasting House, where the newly integrated newsrooms failed to escape from the sinking feeling now familiar to almost every public service in Britain.

With approximately 2,000 journalists, the BBC is still the largest news broadcaster on earth. It is also one of the most highly regarded, and it's hard to find anybody in the business of world news who can name an organisation of the BBC's size with anything even approaching such high standards of trust and impartiality.

The BBC will now receive £34 million over the next two years. It will then be rewarded with £85 million a year to "build the global reach of the World Service." The money will also be spent on digital services and television. So why the sudden change of heart, and why now?

The funding was first announced on Monday, on the 49th page of the government's Strategic Defence Review. Evidently, this U-turn is less about providing a service than it is about projecting a message. Naturally, the headlines focused on the new fighter jets, drones and soldiers. Anybody who kept an eye on the Bush administration will know that security spending reviews in the wake of terrorist attacks are where right-wing notions of smaller government go to die. But buried behind all that was a section on soft power, the politics of global influence.

While remaining a dominant figure in international journalism, the BBC has been challenged in recent years by a new generation of ambitious outsiders broadcasting across the globe in multiple languages. These include Qatari broadcaster Al-Jazeera, who recently established a 24-hour news channel for American viewers and the Chinese state broadcaster CCTV, currently investing in African influence. Alongside them is Russia Today, which specialises in giving a voice to critics of western foreign and economic policy, commissioning shows hosted by George Galloway and Julian Assange. Last year the Russian government launched Sputnik, an international radio service broadcasting 800 hours of Kremlin-approved news in 30 languages every day. While BBC News editors were adjusting to a state of managed decline, these competitors have been finding new audiences, on radio, on television, and online, and on behalf of their anti-democratic proprietors.

Meanwhile, a more insidious rival has emerged. Isis now publish high-quality videos of their appalling crimes on a regular basis. A recent interview with a former Isis cameraman published by The Independent revealed that Isis media teams spend hours recording multiple takes, in high definition, of the group’s various atrocities before delivering their gruesome files to an edit suite outside of Aleppo. It’s a world away from Bin Laden and his grainy Arabic monologues, recorded onto VHS.

Isis have also spent the last year and a half using the shock value of their imagery to pollute social media with their vile ideology while simultaneously encouraging ostracised young Muslims to commit acts of terror in the West. They even publish a regular English language magazine, downloadable as a PDF file anywhere in the world, rebranding war criminals as well mannered public servants. Dabiq Magazine, named after the Syrian site of an ancient Islamic prophecy, was recently used to conduct a glossy interview with Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the wretched ringleader of the massacres in Paris.

As it stands, radicals travelling to fight in Syria now outnumber new Muslim army recruits across Europe, and Putin has more control of the international news agenda than ever before. What's missing is a confident liberal perspective, free from direct government interference.

Back in July, during slightly happier geopolitical times, the Chancellor told Andrew Marr he was worried about BBC becoming "imperial in its ambitions", in relation to online journalism. It's possible that the Conservatives’ long-standing suspicion of the corporation has prevented them from appreciating the corporation's diplomatic potential. But if Broadcasting House can enhance its impression abroad, their relationship with the government could improve just in time to rescue one of our greatest cultural exports. In the wake of Putin's new narrative in Syria and the attacks in Paris, it appears that the international ambitions of the BBC and those of our aspiring Chancellor might not be so different.