What’s driving the anti-Sue Gray offensive?

Plus: Britain’s guilty libel laws and Boris Johnson at the Telegraph.

Sue Gray has been at the centre of much media briefing. Photo by Oli Scarff / AFP via Getty Images

As Labour celebrated its first conference in government for 15 years, Sue Gray was nowhere to be seen in Liverpool. The woman credited with tidying up and professionalising the leaders’ office stayed in London to prepare for Keir Starmer’s trip to the UN. For while gaggles of young men in suits crowded into the Pullman Hotel bar until the early hours, guffawing at their own sheer brilliance, someone had to do some actual work. Why would she even want to be there, politics and press rubbing up close like they’re at a teenage disco?

Gray, who has been Starmer’s chief of staff for the past year, has found herself in the one place an adviser never wants to be: at the centre of the story. In a torrent of leaks, she has been described as “high-handed”, creating “chaos in No 10” and being a “power-hungry control freak” managing all access to the PM. Why are her enemies so set on destroying her? Gray’s adherence to L’Oréal’s “because I’m worth it” mantra with regards to her £170k pay packet is all very fine (and probably true, considering what she could earn outside of politics), but politically it has wound up cash-strapped voters and Spads.

But Gray isn’t in No 10 to be popular, to dole out pay rises, or to let any Tom, Dick or Harry stroll into Starmer’s office whenever they fancy. She is there to get the job done. And there’s nothing British society dislikes more than a middle-aged woman who gave up playing nice around the same time she gave up uncomfortable shoes.

There was some respite for Gray as attention turned to the freebies fiasco – although even then the Daily Mail’s Amanda Platell sniped that Gray’s questionable choice of a “pyjamas” trouser suit proved she couldn’t possibly have been caught up in the frocks-for-access scandal. Nice.

Is Gray creating a dysfunctional No 10? Or is it, as Harriet Harman told Newsnight, that “there is something about an older woman in authority that some young men find hard to put up with”? Those close to Gray believe she will survive the onslaught, but say Starmer needs to show her support. Either she is running the operation just as he wishes (but hasn’t had the gumption to make clear) or it’s time for a change.

***

With Mohamed Al-Fayed dead, the truth is finally being heard. How devastating for the 150-plus women who have come forward to say they were raped or sexual assaulted by him. And how frustrating for journalists who published stories about Al-Fayed’s alleged misdeeds during his lifetime but failed to rouse public interest in the way the recent BBC documentary has done.

Vanity Fair first published allegations of sexual misconduct, racism and surveillance of staff by Al-Fayed in the 1990s, leading to a lengthy libel case. More claims followed in TV documentaries, the latest in 2017. But so much more could have been written.

Persuading victims of sexual assault to speak to the media is always difficult. But the big problem here is Britain’s libel laws: defending a case can cost upwards of £1m, suck time and energy from journalists, and intimidate organisations out of publishing. In the US, a claimant must prove allegations are false and published maliciously. In the UK, all burden of proof lies with the defendant. In this case, that would have meant victims and witnesses standing up in court to support a publication against someone they believed could destroy them.

Cases where the super-rich try to stop legitimate reporting have earned their own acronym: “Slapps” – standing for strategic lawsuits against public participation. The last government backed a bill to ban Slapps, but Labour is dragging its heels on the issue. Let’s have no government hand-wringing over the crimes of Mohammed Al-Fayed, then. Our libel laws colluded with his criminality – and are right now colluding with the criminality of many others, too.

***

Is Boris Johnson already checking out wallpaper options for the editor’s office at the Telegraph? Quite possibly, after Nadhim Zahawi, who is fronting a consortium to buy the title, revealed he’d turn to Johnson if successful after bids close on 27 September. The former Tory chairman told the Arabian Business website: “Anyone who gets the Telegraph, whether it’s me or otherwise, would be mad not to at least sit with Boris and talk about the future of the paper.”

Johnson, who once wrote a £275,000-a-year column for the Telegraph, is now plying his trade for a rumoured £1m at the Daily Mail, where his recent insights included: “WFH may be OK for the older generation, but for the Bridget Joneses of today… they’ll never meet their Mr Darcy.” The Telegraph’s Bridget Joneses have been warned.

***

Tensions are ratcheting up at the Observer over talks to sell the title to the “slow news” start-up Tortoise. As well as worrying about what new ownership might mean, staff are now just as concerned about what happens if the sale doesn’t go ahead. Tortoise owner James Harding has said the sale would be a boost for “liberal journalism”, promising £25m investment and that the 70 staff would keep their jobs. But journalists fear the title will be vulnerable without support from the £1.2bn Scott Trust. And if the sale were to collapse, it could make life difficult. As one insider told me: “It’s clear now the Guardian just want us off the books… So if it’s not Tortoise, what next? Things could get a whole lot worse.”