Praful Nargund refused again and again to take questions from us – in the void of proper interviews, he complained of misinformation on unregulated social media

SOMEONE somewhere in Labour’s campaign operation made the decision that Praful Nargund, its new candidate in Islington North, would not speak to the Islington Tribune.

As we said last week, the dodging of any questions from the borough’s best read newspaper has been taken by our reporters as something of a badge of honour. Scores of requests for an interview in which he could tell us why he wanted to be our area’s MP were rejected.

We had to ‘bid’ for access, we were told.

But the final result in the constituency suggests that robotic control of media messaging is not as fantastic a strategy as the macho Thick Of It types might think.

We do not even know if it was Mr Nargund’s decision to refuse to answer any questions or the brainwave of an unknown higher-upper. It would be even more of a shame for him if it was the latter, but, still, he could have insisted on a change of approach.

Mr Nargund has, after all, been enthused about using our newspaper in the past for writing opinion pieces.

His cheeky campaign team then used these cuttings in his promotional material, even though they were blocking any contact from the same newspaper. Some might call it chutzpah, others arrogance.

Don’t forget we were not even allowed to take a photograph of the man, and we were being asked to learn whether he would be a good MP for the area after the voting ­– rather than before it.

It was the same press office and campaign geniuses who decided to send out a picture of Mr Nargund walking alone with a clipboard as the only approved image for use. They must have had some surrounded by supporters they could’ve handed out.

It’s a debate as to whether the same strategists were right in believing the ‘changed Labour Party’ was best represented with appearances by grandees like Lord Neil Kinnock, Lord Tom Watson, Dame Margaret Hodge and Baroness Harriet Harman, not to mention Lord Peter Mandelson, who stuttered and looked at his notes when recalling Mr Nargund’s name during a Times Radio appearance.

Later, Mr Nargund would complain that misinformation was being shared on the largely unregulated social media sites often by anonymous accounts, but seemed to have no realisation or appreciation as to why this is one of the big reasons that politicians do interviews with recognised news outlets. Instead, he turned down the copious offers to give his side of every story, to lay out his case and to answer the critics.

In the end, Mr Nargund did give an interview to the local press, opting to speak to the Islington Gazette – perhaps out of spite, who knows? Either way, it’s a paper which even some Labour members in Islington lament is a shadow of its former self, covering less politics than it once did and more interested in stories which will drive web traffic.

Ultimately, that paper rewarded Mr Nargund’s apparent generosity of allowing them to interview him by publishing a front page story about Mr Corbyn leading the race in its final issue before the election.

The above might be seen as one upmanship and rivalry among two local papers but we don’t have any problem with the Gazette; they do their thing, and we do ours.

And while we can discuss for an age the importance of a challenging press to the democratic process, perhaps more pertinent to residents in this election was Mr Nargund’s refusal to attend any of the hustings events that local groups had organised.

He wasn’t the only Labour candidate to do this across the country, but it never feels like a great look when the contest is close. The empty chair symbolises an unwillingness to debate.

When we interviewed one of his high profile supporters, Lord Kinnock, the former Labour leader simply described it as part of a “strategy”.

It has been a bizarre, some might say ludicrous, saga and one we’ve never encountered before.

Sir Keir Starmer, the MP in the neighouring borough and part of our catchment area at the Camden New Journal, never shied away from speaking to publications considered friendly or prickly, but it hasn’t been a case of others following his example.

At the election count this morning, our reporter Isabel Loubser – who we feel has been rather badly treated over the course of the past six weeks ­– made a final attempt to speak to Mr Nargund.

He didn’t stop, and walked on.