Rowenna Davis selected as Labour candidate for Southampton Itchen

The New Statesman contributor is chosen to contest the marginal seat currently held by John Denham.

Congratulations to New Statesman writer Rowenna Davis, who has just been selected as Labour's PPC for Southampton Itchen.

I've known Rowenna since 2011 and have long admired her campaigning on issues such as the living wage, affordable housing and payday loans. Current MP John Denham, who is standing down in 2015, held the seat by just 192 votes in 2010 (making it the 13th most marginal in the Commons) but with a candidate as strong as Rowenna it's one the party can be confident of retaining.

She said after her selection:

It's an honour to succeed John Denham as Labour's candidate for Southampton Itchen.

Too many people have told me they feel anxious about the future as a result of a heartless and incompetent government that continues to give a raw deal to this city, threatening Southampton's proud record as a place of hope and opportunity. We urgently need to make Southampton a living wage city, attract new investment and employment, build more affordable housing and support our schools to become the leading lights of the south.

I'm looking forward to working on these issues with all residents whether they voted Labour, Conservative, UKIP or have never voted at all, to change Southampton together.

As well as serving as a councillor in Peckham, Rowenna has been a regular contributor to the NS since 2010. She's also the author of Tangled Up In Blue, an excellent account of the birth of Blue Labour, which I reviewed back in 2011.

To get a flavour of Rowenna's social commentary and investigative journalism, here are a few good places to start.

No "spirit of 45" for the workers at the liberal intelligentsia's favourite cinemas (April 2013)

How food banks became mainstream: the new reality of the working poor (December 2012)

The left's opposition to badger culls ignores the plight of our farmers (October 2012)

Spread of betting shops shows the coalition's failure on growth (June 2012)

The silent crisis engulfing our pubs (March 2012)

Payday loans: "Don’t worry, love, they don’t need your backstory!" (December 2011)

Shadows over the rural idyll (December 2010)

Labour also held its selection in Hampstead and Kilburn today, where Camden councillor Tulip Siddiq was chosen to replace the retiring Glenda Jackson. That seat is even more marginal than Southampton Itchen, with Labour holding on by just 42 votes in 2010.

Judging by tweets from those at the selection, it appears to have been an acrimonious occasion. Camden New Journal reporter Richard Osley wrote: "All a bit heated outside the Labour selection meeting for Hampstead and Kilburn. One man reportedly headbutted in clash outside", and the police and ambulance services were subsequently called.

Rowenna Davis, who was elected to Southwark Council as a councillor in Peckham in May 2011.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

What it’s like to fall victim to the Mail Online’s aggregation machine

I recently travelled to Iraq at my own expense to write a piece about war graves. Within five hours of the story's publication by the Times, huge chunks of it appeared on Mail Online – under someone else's byline.

I recently returned from a trip to Iraq, and wrote an article for the Times on the desecration of Commonwealth war cemeteries in the southern cities of Amara and Basra. It appeared in Monday’s paper, and began:

“‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the engraving reads, but the words ring hollow. The stone on which they appear lies shattered in a foreign field that should forever be England, but patently is anything but.”

By 6am, less than five hours after the Times put it online, a remarkably similar story had appeared on Mail Online, the world’s biggest and most successful English-language website with 200 million unique visitors a month.

It began: “Despite being etched with the immortal line: ‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the truth could not be further from the sentiment for the memorials in the Commonwealth War Cemetery in Amara.”

The article ran under the byline of someone called Euan McLelland, who describes himself on his personal website as a “driven, proactive and reliable multi-media reporter”. Alas, he was not driven or proactive enough to visit Iraq himself. His story was lifted straight from mine – every fact, every quote, every observation, the only significant difference being the introduction of a few errors and some lyrical flights of fancy. McLelland’s journalistic research extended to discovering the name of a Victoria Cross winner buried in one of the cemeteries – then getting it wrong.

Within the trade, lifting quotes and other material without proper acknowledgement is called plagiarism. In the wider world it is called theft. As a freelance, I had financed my trip to Iraq (though I should eventually recoup my expenses of nearly £1,000). I had arranged a guide and transport. I had expended considerable time and energy on the travel and research, and had taken the risk of visiting a notoriously unstable country. Yet McLelland had seen fit not only to filch my work but put his name on it. In doing so, he also precluded the possibility of me selling the story to any other publication.

I’m being unfair, of course. McLelland is merely a lackey. His job is to repackage and regurgitate. He has no time to do what proper journalists do – investigate, find things out, speak to real people, check facts. As the astute media blog SubScribe pointed out, on the same day that he “exposed” the state of Iraq’s cemeteries McLelland also wrote stories about the junior doctors’ strike, British special forces fighting Isis in Iraq, a policeman’s killer enjoying supervised outings from prison, methods of teaching children to read, the development of odourless garlic, a book by Lee Rigby’s mother serialised in the rival Mirror, and Michael Gove’s warning of an immigration free-for-all if Britain brexits. That’s some workload.

Last year James King published a damning insider’s account of working at Mail Online for the website Gawker. “I saw basic journalism standards and ethics casually and routinely ignored. I saw other publications’ work lifted wholesale. I watched editors...publish information they knew to be inaccurate,” he wrote. “The Mail’s editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material, and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication.”

Mail Online strenuously denied the charges, but there is plenty of evidence to support them. In 2014, for example, it was famously forced to apologise to George Clooney for publishing what the actor described as a bogus, baseless and “premeditated lie” about his future mother-in-law opposing his marriage to Amal Alamuddin.

That same year it had to pay a “sizeable amount” to a freelance journalist named Jonathan Krohn for stealing his exclusive account in the Sunday Telegraph of being besieged with the Yazidis on northern Iraq’s Mount Sinjar by Islamic State fighters. It had to compensate another freelance, Ali Kefford, for ripping off her exclusive interview for the Mirror with Sarah West, the first female commander of a Navy warship.

Incensed by the theft of my own story, I emailed Martin Clarke, publisher of Mail Online, attaching an invoice for several hundred pounds. I heard nothing, so emailed McLelland to ask if he intended to pay me for using my work. Again I heard nothing, so I posted both emails on Facebook and Twitter.

I was astonished by the support I received, especially from my fellow journalists, some of them household names, including several victims of Mail Online themselves. They clearly loathed the website and the way it tarnishes and debases their profession. “Keep pestering and shaming them till you get a response,” one urged me. Take legal action, others exhorted me. “Could a groundswell from working journalists develop into a concerted effort to stop the theft?” SubScribe asked hopefully.

Then, as pressure from social media grew, Mail Online capitulated. Scott Langham, its deputy managing editor, emailed to say it would pay my invoice – but “with no admission of liability”. He even asked if it could keep the offending article up online, only with my byline instead of McLelland’s. I declined that generous offer and demanded its removal.

When I announced my little victory on Facebook some journalistic colleagues expressed disappointment, not satisfaction. They had hoped this would be a test case, they said. They wanted Mail Online’s brand of “journalism” exposed for what it is. “I was spoiling for a long war of attrition,” one well-known television correspondent lamented. Instead, they complained, a website widely seen as the model for future online journalism had simply bought off yet another of its victims.