Dan Hodges and NewStatesman.com

Yesterday another website carried what purported to be details of Dan Hodges's departure as a New Statesman blogger. Much of what was reported was untrue and a misrepresentation of private conversations.

For the record:

  • Dan Hodges resigned as one of our freelance bloggers, he was not sacked. Moreover, we asked him to stay and to continue blogging
  • He wasn't being "rested" from the magazine for the simple reason that he is not a regular contributor to it. Like all other would-be contributors to the magazine he was invited to pitch ideas directly to the editor.
  • No article or column intended for the magazine was "spiked" because no piece was commissioned for the magazine.
  • We did choose not to run a piece he filed for the website during the week of the Labour party conference. Dan had already contributed four blog posts that week (as agreed, and double his usual output). A fifth post that went over much of the same ground as the previous posts therefore was deemed redundant. As with all other magazines and newspapers we have occasion to "spike" pieces. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last.

Dan Hodges was brought on to NS.com at the beginning of 2011 because he was -- and remains -- a fine blogger. He was also well connected to various parts of the Labour party and gave us another take on Labour party politics.

His blog description reads "The grit in the oyster of the new politics" so we knew what we were getting from the outset. He caused trouble, he broke stories and wasn't afraid to be highly critical of the Labour leadership. All good. Alongside our Liberal Democrat and Conservative bloggers, as well as our in-house team, he formed part of a lively - and plural - range of voices.

When Dan expressed his desire to "call it a day" during a private conversation in Manchester a week ago, I asked him to reconsider. Sadly, he didn't change his mind and NewStatesman.com has lost a valued contributor.

We wish him well.

Jon Bernstein, former deputy editor of New Statesman, is a digital strategist and editor. He tweets @Jon_Bernstein. 

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.