Gilligan’s “sexed up” attacks on Ken Livingstone

This is a guest post by Bob Pitt

Andrew Gilligan, Boris Johnson and the Iraq Dossier

When Pamela Geller hailed Andrew Gilligan as a “superb investigative journalist” for his exposure of “Islamic supremacism” in Tower Hamlets, this was much what you would expect from a raving anti-Muslim bigot who led a hysterical campaign against the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” in New York. But I’ve always been puzzled that anyone with a basic respect for journalistic integrity could regard Gilligan as anything other than the charlatan that he clearly is.

Yet at the 2008 British Press Awards Gilligan was named Journalist of the Year, with the judges describing his work for the Evening Standard – which for months had consisted primarily of an endless witch-hunt of Ken Livingstone’s then equalities adviser Lee Jasper – as “relentless investigative journalism at its best”. In 2010 Gilligan was longlisted for the Paul Foot Award for investigative campaigning journalism, and although he failed to make the shortlist he was “highly commended” for his reporting on “the fundamentalist infiltration of Tower Hamlets”.

You might think it says a lot about the state of journalism today that a malicious stitch-up artist like Gilligan could be accorded such recognition within his profession. However, sympathy for Gilligan among his fellow journalists (and among the wider public too) probably arises mainly from what is seen as his persecution by the Blair government over his reporting of the notorious September 2002 dossier Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government, the purpose of which was to rally public opinion behind the Iraq war.

As I shall try to show in this article, such admiration for Gilligan over his “exposure” of the Blair government’s role in preparing the ground for the invasion of Iraq is seriously misplaced. Rather, Gilligan’s reporting of the Iraq dossier set a pattern for the unscrupulous and inaccurate journalism that since has become his stock in trade.

Gilligan and the September dossier

In his reporting of the 2002 dossier on Iraq’s WMD, Gilligan’s evident aim was to cause the maximum damage to the Labour government and to Tony Blair’s director of communications Alastair Campbell in particular – not, it has been suggested, because of any principled opposition to the Iraq war, or even to the false claims about WMD used to justify it, but in order to pursue a personal vendetta against Campbell.

In a report broadcast on the Radio 4 Today programme in May 2003, and later in an article for the Mail on Sunday (headlined “I asked my intelligence source why Blair misled us all over Saddam’s weapons. His reply? One word … CAMPBELL”) Gilligan claimed:

(1) that a week before publication Alastair Campbell had decided that the dossier should be “sexed up” by adding the now notorious claim that Saddam Hussein’s regime could deploy WMD within 45 minutes; (2) that the intelligence agencies had been opposed to the inclusion of the 45-minutes claim but had been overruled by Downing Street; and (3) that the government had insisted on the claim appearing in the dossier even though it “probably knew that that 45-minute figure was wrong, even before it decided to put it in”.

The only evidence Gilligan had to back up his charges about Downing Street’s role in preparing the dossier was an off-the-record interview with Ministry of Defence scientist and weapons inspector David Kelly. But Kelly was by no means “one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up that dossier”, as Gilligan described him to Today listeners. Kelly himself later stated that while he had made some technical contributions to the dossier he was “not involved in the intelligence component in any way nor in the process of the dossier’s compilation”. Kelly’s information about the intelligence component of the dossier came from his contacts in the MoD’s Defence Intelligence Staff and he had no first-hand knowledge of Campbell’s role in the inclusion of the 45-minutes claim.

Even if you accept that all of Gilligan’s claims about what Kelly told him were true – and that is quite an assumption to make – Kelly’s allegations were an entirely inadequate basis on which to make such explosive accusations against the government. When Alastair Campbell famously wrote in his diary, in response to initial reports that Gilligan’s information came from Kelly, that he and defence secretary Geoff Hoon had agreed “it would fuck Gilligan if that was his source”, this was the point he was making.

The most Kelly had provided Gilligan with was a lead that needed to be followed up, to see whether the story checked out. If Gilligan did try to find confirmation of the accusations he wanted to make against Downing Street he certainly didn’t come up with anything. But he decided to go ahead with the story anyway, based solely on his talk with Kelly. He was evidently more interested in settling scores with Campbell and basking in the public attention he expected to receive as the author of a dramatic scoop than in ensuring his charges were well founded.

Although the BBC publicly stood by Gilligan in the face of Campbell’s furious reaction to the accusations against him, in private they were under no illusions about Gilligan’s methods. In an email to the head of Radio News a few weeks after Today broke the story, the programme editor Kevin Marsh had some harsh words to say about his reporter. Marsh recognised Gilligan’s talents as an investigator but said that his Today piece had been marred by “flawed reporting” and that, in the BBC’s efforts to counter government attacks on its objectivity and credibility, “our biggest millstone has been his loose use of language and lack of judgment in some of his phraseology”.

Among the solutions proposed by Marsh was that in future Gilligan should discuss all stories with him before they were broadcast, that Gilligan’s anonymous sources should be subjected to “an explicit credibility test”, that Gilligan’s material should be assembled in time to be vetted by Marsh or a senior assistant editor, and that the script should be agreed in advance, with Gilligan under instructions not to vary it. Marsh also proposed that either Gilligan should be banned from writing for publications outside the BBC – or, if he was permitted to do so, the rule should be that “all writing for non-BBC outlets is seen 24 hours in advance of copy time and before it is filed by two editors/managers – if changes are necessary, the changed copy is seen, again before being filed”.

It would be difficult to find a statement by any editor displaying such a complete lack of confidence in the reliability of one of their own journalists.

When Gilligan’s accusations came under detailed scrutiny at the Hutton Inquiry his case against Blair and Campbell fell apart. Gilligan himself admitted that Kelly had not told him that the government knew the 45-minutes claim was false – he had just inferred this from Kelly’s remarks – and he conceded that the reason for the claim being added in the final stages of the dossier’s compilation was that the intelligence on which it was based had not been available earlier. The inquiry also found there was no basis to Gilligan’s charge that the 45-minutes claim had been inserted on Campbell’s insistence against the wishes of the intelligence agencies – some critics in the Defence Intelligence Staff had wanted the claim to be worded less strongly but nobody had objected to its inclusion. The Hutton Inquiry pronounced that Gilligan’s accusations were “unfounded”.

The real story of the September dossier was that the intelligence community – with some honourable, though partial, exceptions – had happily colluded with the Blair government in presenting the public with a misleading picture of Saddam Hussein’s (completely non-existent, it later turned out) WMD, in order to provide a justification for the invasion of Iraq. If Gilligan had stuck to investigating and exposing that, he would have been on firm ground, but he was more interested in attacking Campbell. By making accusations against the government that he could not substantiate, and which were shown by Hutton to be inaccurate, Gilligan allowed Blair and Campbell to divert attention from their own role in the drive to war by loudly proclaiming that they had been the victims of slander.

Rather than acting as a courageous campaigning journalist, Gilligan revealed himself in the course of this controversy to be a cynical hack devoid of any real principles. The storm unleashed by his hyped-up claims about government manipulation of the September dossier not only led to David Kelly’s suicide, but Gilligan made a further contribution to the hounding of Kelly by helping to expose him as his source – a despicable breach of journalistic ethics which understandably remains a cause of anger among Kelly’s friends.

Forced to resign from the BBC after the Hutton report was published in January 2004, Gilligan left in a defiant mood. In a characteristically pompous and self-serving statement he asserted that Hutton’s findings had “cast a chill over all journalism”, by seeking to “hold reporters, with all the difficulties they face, to a standard that it does not appear to demand of, for instance, government dossiers”. If the government could publish misleading claims based on dubious evidence, Gilligan seemed to be saying, then he had the right to do the same. That is certainly the policy he has consistently pursued during his subsequent work as an “investigative reporter”.

Boris Johnson to the rescue

You might have thought that after this debacle, involving the public exposure of his shoddy and unprofessional methods as a reporter and resulting in his effective sacking by the BBC, Gilligan’s career in journalism would be over. Fortunately for him, however, salvation was at hand in the person of the then Tory MP and Spectator editor Boris Johnson.

Throughout Gilligan’s conflict with the government, Johnson had been one of his most enthusiastic and uncritical supporters. After all, Johnson must have reasoned, Gilligan was going after Blair and Campbell, and his accusations had the potential to seriously damage the Labour government, so what was not to like? Writing in the Daily Telegraph in July 2003 Johnson poured scorn on Campbell’s angry denials that he had forced the intelligence agencies to include in the September dossier material that he knew was untrue. “There is only one point we need to understand”, Johnson declared, “which is that he did at many times and places, manipulate intelligence material for political purposes. In the words of the great Gilligan, he ‘sexed it up’, and he, and his master, have been caught.”

In the following week’s column Johnson took issue with colleagues at the Telegraph who had criticised Gilligan on the assumption that, because he worked for “the anti-war BBC”, he must have opposed the invasion of Iraq and was therefore “not to be trusted in his reporting of David Kelly’s views”. Not so, Johnson assured them. He knew for a fact that, while there may have been BBC reporters who opposed the Iraq war, “Andrew Gilligan was not among them”. According to Johnson, the “diligent Gilligan” had done everyone a favour by unmasking Campbell. As for David Kelly, he was “an unimprovable source” for Gilligan’s accusations.

Even as proceedings at the Hutton Inquiry blew large holes in Gilligan’s reporting, Johnson stood by his man. In a leader for the Spectator in September 2003 he suggested, bizarrely, that “one name will live on in British political myth, just as Dreyfus lives on in France. That name is Gilligan”. The Spectator, Johnson announced, was “resolutely Gilliganiste”. The most he would concede was that Gilligan’s story about the September dossier was “perhaps sloppily phrased” and the BBC should have apologised for the “small errors” he had made. Although the Spectator had supported the Iraq war, Johnson wrote, it also stood for “the freedom of journalists to bring new and important facts into the public domain. That was what Gilligan did”.

In December 2003 the Spectator hosted a “Save Andrew Gilligan” dinner at Luigi’s restaurant in Covent Garden. Nick Cohen reported that among the predominantly Tory diners it was tacitly accepted that evidence from the intelligence chiefs at the Hutton hearings had demolished Gilligan’s charges against Campbell over the 45-minutes claim. The Tory party’s best tactic now, it was agreed, would be to denounce Blair for authorising the release of David Kelly’s name to the media, as the Hutton Inquiry revealed he had done, and then denying it when questioned by the press after Kelly’s death.

Sure enough, in January 2004 Johnson devoted an entire Telegraph column to that issue, headlined “The totality is – the Prime Minister lied”. Not only had Blair misled the British people about the government’s role in exposing Kelly, Johnson declared indignantly, but Kelly’s name had been “released with no thought to the effects this action might have on him or his family, and it was done by Blair, Blair, Blair”. Needless to say, Johnson didn’t have a word of criticism for another individual who had helped to reveal Kelly as the source for the Today and Mail on Sunday reports, without any regard for the consequences – namely Gilligan, Gilligan, Gilligan.

Unlike his fellow diners at Luigi’s, though, Johnson was not prepared to accept that the Hutton Inquiry had refuted Gilligan’s accusations against Campbell, and he continued to maintain that “the BBC story was essentially accurate”. For Johnson, the point of the exercise was to undermine the Labour government and Gilligan had to be defended whether he was right or wrong. It wouldn’t be the last time that the gaping holes in Gilligan’s journalism were overlooked by his admirers because he was telling them what they wanted to hear.

In January 2004, the day after the Hutton report was released, Johnson’s Telegraph column appeared under the headline “The BBC was doing its job – bring back Gilligan”, a call repeated by Johnson in a leader for that week’s Spectator. Batting away the findings of the inquiry, Johnson insisted that Gilligan’s Today broadcast of May 2003 had been “justified reporting”. Gilligan ought to be given credit for “an important, accurate and exclusive story” and should be “reinstated forthwith to his job on Today“. When the BBC failed to follow his advice, and demanded Gilligan’s resignation instead, Johnson stepped in and offered him a job at the Spectator as its defence and diplomatic editor.

When Gilligan was later asked who in the media had been most helpful at the time of Hutton, the name he immediately came up with was, unsurprisingly, Boris Johnson: “He was very supportive over the whole thing and I’ve made no secret that I’m very grateful for that.” His unwavering support for Gilligan during 2003-4 was later to yield real political dividends for Johnson. By the time Johnson was selected as the Tory candidate for the 2008 London mayoral election, Gilligan had moved on from the Spectator and was working for the Evening Standard. There Gilligan was able to repay his debt to Johnson by placing his journalistic talents – for hyping up flimsy evidence and making false and malicious accusations – in the service of Johnson’s campaign to defeat Ken Livingstone. It is a service that Gilligan continues to perform for Johnson to this day.

Conclusion

In light of the above, it is not difficult to understand either Gilligan’s fierce commitment to ensuring Boris Johnson’s election to the London mayoralty or the unscrupulous approach towards evidence that he has employed in pursuing that objective.

True, these days Gilligan doesn’t have the clout he did in 2008, when his witch-hunt of Lee Jasper produced shock-horror headlines on Evening Standard billboards across London and determined much of the news coverage by the BBC and other media outlets who should have known better. Today, Gilligan’s bosses at the Telegraph – no doubt anxious about his lightminded attitude towards the facts and refusal to learn from or even acknowledge his mistakes – have shunted most of his London reporting onto a blog on the paper’s website and relatively little of his “investigative journalism” makes it into the paper’s print edition. Also the glaring failure of Gilligan’s accusations against Lee Jasper to stand up under subsequent investigation has probably made fellow journalists rather more wary of accepting his charges at face value.

But that hasn’t stopped Gilligan producing a barrage of anti-Livingstone blog posts that grow ever more obsessive and unbalanced. Hopefully the analysis presented here will help to demolish any residual admiration for Gilligan among opponents of the Iraq war and give pause to anyone who might be inclined to take his attacks on Livingstone seriously.

18 comments on “Gilligan’s “sexed up” attacks on Ken Livingstone

  1. skidmarx on said:

    Perhaps it would be a good idea to note that Gilligan’s latest supposed expose of Galloway reaches its nadir with:

    “‎”There was a Respect campaign banner behind Mr Galloway as he spoke. The slogans on it were in English and Urdu. The Urdu slogans were above the English ones.”

  2. Danny on said:

    It is a tactical error of major proportions to validate the Blair/Campbell version of the Iraq dossier as a way of attacking Gilligan.

    Why not point out Gilligan’s bollocks on several other stories rather than challenging the one decent piece of journalism he’s ever done? Is it aimed at diverting him from his stock in trade of pumping out anti-Ken propaganda? If so, it’s unlikely to work.

    Blair, Campbell and the New Labour war cabinet should be held to account for the death of David Kelly and use of sexed up material, not let off the hook.

  3. Colin on said:

    Come on Bob – if you’re going to launch ad hominum attacks on Gilligan accusing him of having personal motives, you could at least admit your own personal motivations.

    If Ken is elected, will you get your old City Hall job back?

  4. I don’t think Danny or Omar can have read the article. The Blair/Campbell version is that the dossier was merely a summary of the available intelligence on Iraq and was not intended to make the case for war. This was the line Campbell took at the Chilcot Inquiry. Obviously it’s complete bollocks.

    The problem with Gilligan’s attack on the dossier was that he accused Campbell of overriding the intelligence agencies in order to insert the 45-minutes claim. Gilligan didn’t have the evidence to substantiate that charge – David Kelly was not a sufficently informed or reliable source – and it turned out to be incorrect.

    Campbell didn’t need to override the intelligence agencies because none of them objected to the inclusion of the 45-minutes claim. The most that anyone in the intelligence community questioned was the strength of the language used to make that claim.

    The real story of the Iraq dossier, as I point out, is that the intelligence community abandoned any pretence of political objectivity and happily provided the government with the pro-war propaganda it required.

    As Major General Michael Laurie told Chilcot: “We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence….”

    But Gilligan missed the real story because he was intent on stitching up Campbell for something he didn’t in fact do. It was Gilligan who let the government off the hook, because Campbell could not unreasonably claim he had been slandered.

    The reason why this has some relevance to what Gilligan is doing today is precisely because many people – fellow journalists, the general public, leftist opponents of the Iraq war – still hold the view that he was the good guy who was pilloried by the government for his accurate reporting of the Iraq dossier, and this lends some credibility to his current reporting.

    For example a couple of years back, in a blog post on Chilcot, Dave Osler indignantly defended Gilligan against the charge of being a “sloppy journalist”, asserted that Campbell owed Gilligan an apology for attacking his reporting of the Iraq dossier and expressed regret that Gilligan “has not enjoyed the prominence his talents undoubtedly deserve” since the BBC dispensed with his services.

    I think this sort of nonsense needs to be nailed. Gilligan has always been a stitch-up merchant and the fact that we have no sympathy with the individual he stitched up over the Iraq dossier doesn’t make it any less of a stitch-up. And he now uses the same methods to stitch up people like Ken Livingstone.

  5. timothyMN on said:

    “In 2010 Gilligan was longlisted for the Paul Foot Award for investigative campaigning journalism”

    Ugh… Is that some kind of sick joke?

    It’s like the Orwell Prize going to Christopher Hitchens. But then Hitchens has made the 2012 long list. Another sick joke.

  6. Matty on said:

    Interesting article, don’t really agree with comment 2. The article doesn’t whitewash Blair. Rather, it seems to claim that Gilligan, by being sloppy, allowed Campbell to counter attack on a weak point.

  7. #5
    I’m no Gilligan fanboy by any stretch, and to be honest, I’m not overly-fussed about the minutae of the reporting around these events, especially as it relates to the Blair inner-circle. But it was his reporting that really shone a light on just how dishonestly the case for war had been made. In the end the final decision for war rested with the New Labour government,not the intelligence services, and Campbell was the Press officer who helped dissemminate false information that lead to unspeakable levels of tragedy.

  8. Omar: it was his reporting that really shone a light on just how dishonestly the case for war had been made

    But it wasn’t. How many times does this have to be said?

    Gilligan’s reporting didn’t shine a light on how the case for war had in fact been made. He presented a fantasy scenario in which the intelligence community were opposed to the 45-minutes claim being included in the dossier but were ignored by Campbell who insisted on its inclusion against their objections.

    Gilligan pushed that version of events because he wanted to have a go at Campbell. But it wasn’t true.

    The intelligence agencies happily colluded with the government in drawing up the dossier. The only objections came from within the MoD’s Defence Intelligence Staff, and those objections were limited to asking for the wording of the 45-minutes claim to be toned down.

    And Campbell didn’t have to go to the trouble of rejecting their arguments because John Scarlett of the Joint Intelligence Committee had already done that for him.

    To repeat the point, the real story of the Iraq dossier was that the intelligence agencies went along with the government’s aim of misleading the public over the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. They were as culpable as Campbell. And Gilligan completely missed that story because he was so intent on stitching up Campbell.

    This tells us a lot about Gilligan’s methods as a journalist.

    An honest journalist conducting an investigation into a controversial issue would proceed in an objective manner, collecting documentary evidence and interviewing witnesses who could shed light on events, while at the same time subjecting all this material to critical evaluation.

    No doubt the reporter would start their research with some expectations as to where it might lead, but they would scrupulously follow the actual evidence. Any conclusions they drew, or accusations of wrongdoing they might make, would be based upon the evidence they had uncovered and would come at the end of the investigative process.

    Gilligan’s approach appears to be the reverse of this. He starts off with the accusations he wants to make – that the Blair government has inserted misinformation into the Iraq dossier against the wishes of the intelligence agencies, that Lee Jasper is handing over public money to criminal cronies in the Black community, that Tower Hamlets is being taken over by Muslim extremists intent on establishing an Islamic state – and he then looks around for evidence that will fit his conclusions.

    If solid evidence can’t be found, Gilligan refuses to accept that the accusations are false or questionable – he just hypes up the material he has discovered and arrogantly declares that his charges have been proved.

    Just because it was Alastair Campbell who was on the receiving end of Gilligan’s methods in 2003, that doesn’t make these methods any more defensible.

  9. Colin: If Ken is elected, will you get your old City Hall job back?

    Nope. Not a chance. So there’s no personal motive to this article. Other than the fact that I despise Gilligan because he’s a lying toerag of course.

  10. Vanya on said:

    #8 ‘I’m not overly-fussed about the minutae of the reporting around these events…’.

    But if a journalist (or anyone else for that matter) bases an entire premise on exposing someone else as economical with the truth, it is hardly helpful if they are themselves shown to be giving an inaccurate account.

    Just because we opposed the war (and would have done whether the dossier had been exposed or not, does not alter the facts. So if Gilligan was wrong about this, he was wrong.

    Let’s face it, the bogus story about the photos of alleged torture in the Daily Mirror lost Piers Morgan his job and that hardly hped the anti-war movement did it?

  11. john P Reid on said:

    All these refernce to Johnson and Giligan has nopwt to do with Livingstone and the Attacked Gilligna made on Livingstone in 2008, Gilligan and the Evenign standard didn’t actually endorse Johnson in 2008

  12. john P Reid: Gilligan and the Evenign standard didn’t actually endorse Johnson in 2008

    What planet does John P Reid inhabit? I mean, we know it’s a planet where the atmosphere prevents his computer’s spellcheck from functioning properly, but which one exactly?

    It was the Standard’s editor, Victoria Wadley, who persistently pushed for Johnson to be adopted as the Tory candidate for the 2008 London mayoral election, starting in 2005 when she urged the idea on a reluctant David Cameron.

    Eventually, by 2007, Cameron had changed his mind and it was Boris’s turn to show a lack of enthusiasm. Sonia Purnell (Just Boris, p.310) quotes a source close to Cameron as saying:

    “Boris didn’t really want to do it. We – George Osborne, Dave himself, Andy Coulson, Steve Hilton – endlessly had to go on about the fact that he could win. One of the big factors in persuading him was being able to say that we knew from Veronica that the Standard would be completely behind him.”

    And so it proved. With Gilligan leading the charge.

  13. “Gilligan’s reporting didn’t shine a light on how the case for war had in fact been made. He presented a fantasy scenario in which the intelligence community were opposed to the 45-minutes claim being included in the dossier but were ignored by Campbell who insisted on its inclusion against their objections.”

    Just so exonerating the spooks and kicking Labour two for the price of one.

    Gilligan is not a good journo. He is an effective attack dog and that is why his MO should be challenged.

  14. Omar on said:

    Bob,
    Look, we know Gilligan is a scumbag who just happened to hit upon a story relating to an emotional issue at an opportune moment. He did however help massively in drawing attention to the outright fabrications governments ,even supposedly left-wing ones, will produce to justify war. But the “real” story, above all else, is that an ostensibly socialist government,in the face of mass domestic opposition, worked hand-in-hand with perhaps the most right-wing U.S. administration yet to unleash havoc in Iraq that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands,if not millions, of innocent people. No amount of refocussing on some hack or revisionist tinkering is going to change that,and the fact that it was cynically perpetrated by a party that is supposed to be “of the people” makes it all the more outrageous.

  15. Look, Omar, nobody is disputing that the Blair government did what you say. There’s no disagreement here over that. Just telling us what we already know serves no purpose.

    The point is that Gilligan’s story about Alastair Campbell’s role in preparing the 2002 Iraq dossier didn’t assist in exposing the dishonesty with which the government made the case for war – for the simple reason that Gilligan’s story wasn’t true.

    The only way Gilligan shed any light on the government’s warmongering propaganda campaign was that his actions led to the suicide of David Kelly, and this in turn led to the Hutton Inquiry, and that inquiry did reveal some useful information about how the September 2002 dossier was manipulated in order to make the case for war.

    But this turned out to be very different from Gilligan’s story.

    It is a problem that Gilligan is given some credit as an “investigative reporter” because many people still labour under the illusion that he did “help massively in drawing attention to the outright fabrications” of the Blair government over the Iraq war, as you put it. The reason I wrote this article was to show that this view is mistaken and to demonstrate Gilligan’s fraudulent method as a journalist.

    Making accusations against people he wants to do down, without any concern for the reliability of the evidence he uses to support these accusations, is the way Gilligan operates. Even if his target in this instance was Alastair Campbell rather that Lee Jasper, it’s still a method we should reject.

  16. #14 Of course I meant Veronica Wadley not Victoria. But here’s another quote from Just Boris about the Standard’s role in securing Johnson’s election in 2008 by witch-hunting Lee Jasper:

    Wadley, a formidable if unemotional figure, stood by Gilligan as an “outstanding and fearless” journalist pursuing investigations “in the public interest”. Nothing would deter her from what she started calling “the campaign”.

    “Veronica put her entire being into it, frequently coming in at 4a.m. to prepare that day’s Gilligan coverage and never later than six. Overall, she worked round the clock, seven days a week”, recalls a close colleague. Indeed, Wadley might have added that she and Gilligan were doing more to further the “Back Boris” bid than the man himself.

    As Andy has noted, Gilligan’s decision to target the most prominent black figure in Ken’s administration was hardly accidental. The tone of Gilligan’s attacks on Jasper – featuring headlines such as “Former street hustler at the heart of Livingstone’s empire” and “A vibrant hub for ‘criminals’ and race adviser’s cronies” – was clearly calculated to play to racist stereotypes in order to mobilise a right-wing white vote behind Boris Johnson.

    At the end of 2007 the Tories hired the Australian political strategist Lynton Crosby to take charge of Johnson’s campaign. Crosby had acquired notoriety in his home country for his “dog whistle” appeals to racism among white voters. In the Australian general election of 2001 he was responsible for John Howard’s slogan “We decide who will come into this country”, based on the false claim that asylum seekers whose ship had been prevented from entering Australian territorial waters had tried to blackmail their way in by throwing their own children overboard. In 2005 Crosby came to the UK to run the Tories’ general election campaign, with its “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” poster which assured voters that “It’s not racist to talk about immigration”.

    However, given the furore over Johnson’s remarks in his earlier journalism about “piccianinnies” with “watermelon smiles”, his dismissal of the Lawrence Inquiry as “Orwellian”, his reference to South Africa falling under “the majority tyranny of black rule” and so on, the deployment of Crosby’s patented “dog whistle” propaganda over race would have backfired badly on Johnson’s campaign. Happily for the Tories, Andrew Gilligan was on hand to perform that service for Crosby, whipping up the racists to vote for Boris while Johnson’s campaign could claim their hands were clean. It was a mark of Gilligan’s success that the BNP called for a second preference vote for Johnson.