Steven Glover On The Press: Has the Government been using 'The Times' as its attack dog?

Do the readers of The Times know that it is a New Labour free-sheet? It is possible to take a different view. The editorials are usually judicious, and rarely slavishly pro-New Labour. There are several Tory columnists on the paper, such as William Rees-Mogg and Matthew Parris and Michael Gove, and, until he jumped ship to The Guardian, there was Simon Jenkins. The editor of The Times, were he with us now, could make a spirited case for saying that his paper is not in New Labour's pocket.

And yet it often is where it counts the most - in the news columns. A few weeks ago, a former New Labour spin doctor called Tim Allan passed a video to a journalist on The Times which, according to the newspaper, showed the interviewer John Humphrys ridiculing senior New Labour politicians and implying that all ministers are liars. This was a twisted account of what Mr Humphrys actually said. The Times acted as the Government's propagandist, Mr Humphrys being a hate figure for New Labour, which is what the former spin doctor assumed it would do. Who was the recipient of the video, and who had a by-line above the story? Tom Baldwin, a long-time soldier for New Labour, and, over the years, the author of many stories designed to do down its enemies.

Next week a book is published in which Mr Baldwin is depicted as one of two complete rascals. The other is Sir Peter Stothard, the editor of The Times from 1992 to 2002. The author of Dirty Politics, Dirty Times is Michael Ashcroft, who for a few months in the summer of 1999 was on the receiving end of a barrage of smears from The Times, many of which were written by Mr Baldwin. Lord Ashcroft is a Tory and an alleged billionaire, as well as being, by his own admission a controversial businessman, and some people may not care overmuch about what was done to such a person. But he was undoubtedly the victim of a sinister vendetta that seems to have been at least partly inspired by the Government.

Between June and October 1999, The Times published tens of thousands of words about Lord (then Mr) Ashcroft, who was Treasurer of the Tory Party, responsible for trying to restock its dwindling coffers. Many of the stories were written by Tom Baldwin. There were smears and innuendos, but the paper did not really lay a hand on its victim until 21July, when it suggested that the American Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had Lord Ashcroft in its sights as a drug-runner and money-launderer. The Times's sole source was a junior DEA official called Jonathan Randel, who was later jailed for a year for passing classified information to The Times and other parties for payment (the paper gave him at least £6,000). What it did not say was that Lord Ashcroft's name merely appeared in a DEA database which had five million other entries, including Denis Thatcher and the London City Ballet.

Lord Ashcroft sued The Times. In December, after its owner, Rupert Murdoch, had become involved, the paper published a correction in which it withdrew any suggestion that Lord Ashcroft had been involved in either drug-running or money-laundering. It remains baffling why its editor, Peter Stothard, should have unleashed such a ferocious campaign. Possibly he was just trying to make a name for himself. Maybe he did genuinely convince himself that Lord Ashcroft was a crook. Having embraced New Labour just as, 15 years earlier, he'd latched on to Thatcherism, he may simply have wanted to damage William Hague, the then Tory leader, by attacking the party's treasurer. The really interesting question is the degree to which he and Mr Baldwin were aided and abetted by Government insiders.

During its almost manic pursuit of Lord Ashcroft, The Times quoted Foreign Office documents which offered pretty innocuous, though unflattering, opinions about him. Lord Ashcroft became convinced that the Government had a "dirt file" on him, and took it to court. As the case was about to begin, in June 2003, the Government capitulated, acknowledging that "various disobliging references" relating to Lord Ashcroft's business activities were "without foundation", and it - or the taxpayer - met Lord Ashcroft's substantial costs.

We may be certain that the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development leaked confidential documents to The Times in the hope of damaging Lord Ashcroft and Her Majesty's main Opposition party. Lord Ashcroft has been unable to prove - so far - exactly who passed on the dirt, but since Mr Baldwin was the author of so many stories, it is reasonable to speculate that his close friend Alastair Campbell, at that time Tony Blair's chief spin-doctor, was probably involved.

I hold no brief for Mr Ashcroft, whom I have met only once. He is clearly a very tough cookie, and this is a work of revenge. Sir Peter Stothard is depicted as duplicitous and untrustworthy; three other Times journalists are described snorting cocaine. Very possibly Lord Ashcroft is hoping for a writ so that he can air further allegations in court; and in any case his own legal actions have not entirely abated.

What should worry us now is not so much the harm done to him - in the end his reputation has been salvaged, and he can obviously look after himself - as the suggestion that New Labour and The Times conspired anti-democratically to damage the main Opposition party. In America there would have been an official enquiry. But, in this country, almost no one knows about these shenanigans.

Editing The Spectator would be an honour

Not long after my column appeared last week, I received a telephone call from an extremely aerated Simon Heffer. Mr Heffer, whom I know a little as a fellow columnist on the Daily Mail, said that there was no truth in the suggestion that he had been offered the editorship of The Spectator magazine. He said that he only wished that I could see his eyes as I would know that he was telling the truth. I said there was no need; I was happy to take his word. Guy Black, the Telegraph Group's new corporate affairs director, has sent an e-mail to The Independent asserting that Murdoch MacLennan, the chief executive of the Telegraph Group, did not offer Mr Heffer the Spectator editorship.

The only problem - though I was unable to bang this idea into Mr Heffer's mind - is that I never wrote that he had been offered the editorship of The Spectator; I said that he had been virtually offered it. My contention, which I do not change, was that Mr MacLennan had the idea of installing Mr Heffer at The Spectator but met unexpected resistance from its chief executive, Andrew Neil. I suppose it is possible that these discussions went on over Mr Heffer's head, though some may think this a little unlikely, given his friendship with Mr MacLennan.

Mr Heffer suggested to me that his reputation had been damaged by my piece. Rubbish! How seriously we journalists take ourselves. Even to have been thought of as an editor of The Spectator is a huge feather in Mr Heffer's cap. It is no insult to him that Mr Neil did not warm to the idea.

I did suggest to Mr Heffer that he send a letter for publication setting down the facts as he sees them. It is not too late. If he feels a little shy about setting pen to paper, perhaps he could prevail on Mr MacLennan, or even Mr Neil, to do so.

scmgox@aol.com