Press Gazette's top 50 comment writers

Print journalists dominate the list of the UK's top commentators.

This month's Press Gazette contains a list of the UK's top 50 comment journalists, rated by the public and a sample of comment journalists.

The top ten is as follows:

1. Matthew Parris, Times
2. Simon Jenkins, Evening Standard, Guardian
3. Jeremy Clarkson, Sunday Times, Sun
4. Quentin Letts, Daily Mail
5. Polly Toynbee, Guardian
6. Richard Littlejohn, Daily Mail
7. Charlie Brooker, Guardian
8. Rachel Sylvester, Times
9. Janice Turner, Times
10. Rod Liddle, Sunday Times

What really jumps out about this list is that they're all print journalists, even though both sets of respondents were allowed to name bloggers. In fact, 38.1 per cent of those surveyed (the biggest proportion) said that they preferred reading comment pieces in print.

This is reflected across the whole top 50 -- the only blogger who made it on to the list was Stephen Fry (at number 42), mainly from the public vote.

Jeremy Clarkson was also included by virtue of the popular vote. He was the public's favourite commentator, but received no votes from the panel of journalists. The controversial Clarkson is an increasingly influential media player, ranking 74 on the Guardian's list of top 100 media figures in 2007.

A survey last November by Continental Research suggested his Sun column was the one that consumers would be most willing to pay to read online.

The public's top two were Clarkson and Richard Littlejohn, showing that their taste diverges somewhat from the reasoned comment favoured by the panel of journalists (their top two were Simon Jenkins and Matthew Parris). Perhaps there are lessons to be learned there.

Finally, some shameless self-promotion. Two New Statesman columnists also made it on to on the list -- Steve Richards (31) and Peter Wilby (44).

Press Gazette is owned by Progressive Media, which also owns the New Statesman.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.