Why is Andrew Neil so keen to bash the New Statesman?

Spectator chairman uses his "impartial" BBC platform to denigrate a commercial rival.

During an interview with Harriet Harman on today's edition of BBC2's Daily Politics, presenter Andrew Neil took a snide swipe at the New Statesman, asking the Labour deputy leader: "What’s the logic of saying that the online site of the New Statesman should come within this regulation, a site which has no great influence in Westminster, but that Guido Fawkes, probably the most influential site in Westminster, should not?" Is this the same Mr Neil who last year expressed a wish to buy the New Statesman, only to be rebuffed?

But then Neil is hardly a disinterested party. He is currently chairman (formerly chief executive) of Press Holdings, the company that owns the Spectator magazine, so perhaps it's not surprising that his usually forensic mind let him down on this occasion. Based on the most recently published figures, the Spectator website, which includes Guido Fawkes blogger Harry Cole as a contributing editor, attracted just 380,000 users a month in 2011. By comparison, between 1 and 7 December - a single week - the NS site had 229,472 unique browsers and 594,710 page views, and between 1 and 30 November received over a million uniques - twice the traffic recorded by the Spectator. 

If Neil wants to use his BBC platform to disparage the New Statesman website, he should at least declare his interest in doing so. We'll be keeping an eye on you, Andrew! 

BBC presenter and chairman of Spectator owner Press Holdings Andrew Neil.
Getty
Show Hide image

Could Jeremy Corbyn still be excluded from the leadership race? The High Court will rule today

Labour donor Michael Foster has applied for a judgement. 

If you thought Labour's National Executive Committee's decision to let Jeremy Corbyn automatically run again for leader was the end of it, think again. 

Today, the High Court will decide whether the NEC made the right judgement - or if Corbyn should have been forced to seek nominations from 51 MPs, which would effectively block him from the ballot.

The legal challenge is brought by Michael Foster, a Labour donor and former parliamentary candidate. Corbyn is listed as one of the defendants.

Before the NEC decision, both Corbyn's team and the rebel MPs sought legal advice.

Foster has maintained he is simply seeking the views of experts. 

Nevertheless, he has clashed with Corbyn before. He heckled the Labour leader, whose party has been racked with anti-Semitism scandals, at a Labour Friends of Israel event in September 2015, where he demanded: "Say the word Israel."

But should the judge decide in favour of Foster, would the Labour leadership challenge really be over?

Dr Peter Catterall, a reader in history at Westminster University and a specialist in opposition studies, doesn't think so. He said: "The Labour party is a private institution, so unless they are actually breaking the law, it seems to me it is about how you interpret the rules of the party."

Corbyn's bid to be personally mentioned on the ballot paper was a smart move, he said, and the High Court's decision is unlikely to heal wounds.

 "You have to ask yourself, what is the point of doing this? What does success look like?" he said. "Will it simply reinforce the idea that Mr Corbyn is being made a martyr by people who are out to get him?"