The IoS diary

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Avebury has battled heroically over the years to find out just how chummy Tony Blair is with Rupert Murdoch. Last year he asked the Information Commissioner for times and dates of their meetings between September 2002 and April 2005. The Commissioner replied that the Cabinet Office had a record of just one "official" (ie, when minutes were taken) meeting, in March 2003. Evidently there were plenty of others not considered "official". Avebury lodged an appeal with the Information Tribunal over the matter.

Now, courtesy of Alastair Campbell's diaries, comes news of another meeting. In his entry of 23 August 2003, Campbell writes that Blair "said he had a good meeting on holiday with Murdoch, Elisabeth [his daughter, pictured below], Les [Hinton] and Irwin Stelzer". This was the Barbados holiday taken by the Blairs a couple of weeks after David Kelly died and just before the Hutton inquiry kicked off. The meeting had not previously been mentioned. Avebury tells me he will have more to say on this in the coming week. "It will be very interesting to compare the dates Alastair Campbell cites with the dates given by the Cabinet Office to see if they correspond," he says. Watch this space.

The publication of Campbell's diaries has, in turn, prompted a flood of memories from his old colleagues, not least former 'Daily Mirror' politics supremo David Seymour, who claims in 'The Daily Telegraph' that it was Campbell who used the previously unattributed phrase "psychologically flawed" of Gordon Brown. So does the former spin-doctor still deny the charge? "Yes," says Campbell. I ask if he will be suing the 'Daily Mail' over its assertion in a headline on Wednesday that he is a "liar". "No, I won't," says Campbell. Does that mean it's open season?

Was Emily Maitlis's ban from 'The Spectator' all a game of dirty tricks? It was only three weeks ago that the 'New Statesman' appointed a sparkling new list of contributing editors. Maitlis's appointment to 'The Spectator' was seen as a counter to this. However, it's thought that 'Statesman' editor John Kampfner also wanted to appoint a senior BBC figure and was turned down. Come the Maitlis announcement, the 'Statesman', in true agitatory spirit, put a few carefully aimed complaints in to the BBC and has largely been credited with forcing the corporation into its climbdown. Kampfner, however, is not a mean-spirited man. "He was just flagging-up some inconsistencies in policy," says a spokesman. "We have in the past approached people from the BBC and been turned down." 'The Spectator', in turn, has stuck two fingers up at the BBC yet again. This week's diary has been written by their lachrymose foreign affairs correspondent Fergal Keane.

Elsewhere, Lady Thatcher's office has gone strangely quiet on the subject of Lord Black. When he was facing charges, her people said defiantly: "Lady Thatcher always had a good personal relationship with Conrad Black. She does not cut and run just because someone gets into difficulties. Conrad is innocent until proven guilty." So now the guilty verdicts are in. Ahem? "We won't be putting out any statement," says an assistant tersely.

BBC1 controller Peter Fincham has been admirable in taking responsibility for the Queen's recent displeasure over the documentary featuring the mis-edited Annie Leibovitz photo-shoot. But why would Fincham be so protective of RDF, the production company that jumbled up the sequence of images? RDF has yet to pronounce on the matter, though two of its executives, Stephen Lambert and Grant Mansfield, were summoned to see BBC Vision director Jana Bennett on Thursday. The trouble, says one insider, is that since the BBC has had to outsource so much of its own production, it has become reliant on quality production companies such as RDF, which tends to sell its best output, such as 'Wife Swap' and 'Supernanny' (yes, really), to Channel 4. Could it be that, in the interests of keeping BBC1 a contender, Fincham does not want to get them "in a huff"?

As previously promised: Andrew Roberts on the subject of tuna. The historian has recently moved to Belgravia where, he says, local shops sell tiny slivers of tuna for [pound]16.50. "It's extortionate," he complains. I point out there is a Sainsbury's a short walk away - where a can of tuna costs 69p.

Copyright 2007 Independent Newspapers UK Limited. All rights owned or operated by The Independent.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.