How has your day been in Cambridge?

It has been good! I haven't been here that long but the sun is shining, and I'm looking forward to having a bit of fun. I've been asked to do some door-knocking with Daniel Zeichner, then dinner tonight with members of the Cambridge Labour Party to discuss many different things.

Anything in particular?

These days the conversation inevitably girates towards Rupert Murdoch, but I would like to talk a little bit about Labour policy as well!

As the campaign co-ordinator for Labour, how do you feel about the results of the local elections?

I think we made good progress in the areas we needed to. Campaigning is quite a sophisticated game now; there are key things we need to do as a shadow cabinet to get our policies right, but we've got to make sure we're focused operationally. The result I still feel cheered by was during the elections here last year with Sue Birtles, elected last May. It was a great result and I think it was the first labour gain there in 20 years.

Looking back then a year on from the publication of your collaborative book, “Dial M for Murdoch”, do you feel that it did what it set out to achieve?

Well, I wrote it as a contribution to the public debate about Britain's media, and it's taken me around the country to discuss the implications of it. I don't know if the misery of uncovering the hacking scandal was worth it yet, but I think that until we have a settlement on Leveson it's still up in the air. But I am more optimistic than I was about the progress made.

Although something still missing in the mix of all this is the question of ownership. The hacking happened because people working under Rupert Murdoch thought they were unaccountable, and they got too powerful because Murdoch owned too much of Britain's media. So I want all three main political parties to unequivocally commit to media reform that looks at ownership as well as regulation in the next election.

When you originally started to tackle Murdoch, what did that demand of you?

Psychologically I was out for the count. It was a very bleak and dark time. In 2008 I'd had enough of politics, the national media, and government. I was going to leave Parliament in 2010 for a different life, so I thought i'd join the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee over those 18 months for a slightly quieter life, and then the scandal broke. I could see almost straight away that a great injustice had happened – so I started to pursue it. But I now know that because of that they put me under covert surveillance, they commissioned Mazher Mahmood to put a team on me to follow me around, they got a former metropolitan police officer who's trained in these things to follow me, and there were threats. I can sort of laugh about it now, but at the time it was the worst period of my life. I've got to know my private investigator quite well now, but it was weird to know that people would follow you around. You don't think that's going to happen to you when you go into politics.

Do you think the media has changed at all, post-Leveson?

I don't see any humility in the tabloid media, but again I think it's too early to tell. There is a recognition among leaders in the media that you need to show some leadership to their tabloid competitors, but from the people that own these media outlets... I've not seen much contrition.

Yesterday Andy Coulson and Ian Edmundson pleaded not guilty in the phone-hacking scandal. Can you offer any comment?

There is lots I want to say on this as I sat in on the trials yesterday, but because of the strict reporting restrictions I can't say anything, other than: watch this space.

Yesterday Ed Milliband gave a speech about Labour's cap on benefits spending if they enter government in 2015. Do you think it will work?

Well, the clue is in the name really, we're the Labour party. We believe that the remedy to the recession is jobs and growth, and the reason the social security bill is rising dramatically is because we've got short term cuts that were misdirected. So if we win in 2015, we need to do two things: we need to enact a jobs and growth plan that very rapidly reduces unemployment and brings the 1 million-odd young people unemployed into the world of work, as well as seriously controlling expenditure. So the idea of a benefits cap at the end of a parliament is the right thing, because that's the kind of discipline that you need in the public sector to deliver reform.

Ed Balls' recent announcement regarding the winter fuel allowance has been heavily criticised and opposed by several senior labour figures. What stance do you hold?

I think it's the right thing for him to do at this point. The truth is, the low growth recession has been elongated as a result of Osbourne's policies, and what Ed was really expressing was a realistic view of where Labour would be with the economy in 2015. The Labour party believes in universalism, for all the right reasons, but there is a balance to be struck when it comes to social security between targeting benefits at the most vulnerable and the universal principle. I think it's reasonable. We're a party that believes in aspiration for all, but we're also a party that has to be realistic about the economy.

The gay marriage bill was recently passed in parliament, and you voted in favour. What do you think has been the significance of this for Britain?

I think it's really an expression of where we are as a society. Strangely I was just having a conversation with a very old friend of mine of the Labour party. In the early 90's he said to me, “people like me [homosexuals] can never be members of parliament”. I thought, I must get in touch with him, because this is another milestone in a great movement of tolerance and liberal values in this country. Strangely, parliament was contorted in agony with this decision. Some MPs were really challenged by it, but for me it was one of the easiest votes I've ever had. It just seemed like a natural expression of fairness.

It has also been announced that recently three members of the House of Lords have been accused of agreeing to carry out parliamentary work for payment, two of whom were aligned with Labour.

Well they've been suspended and there will be an inquiry; if they breach the rules they will have to pay the price. But I will say though that the last media sting on this lost a very big libel case against a Tory funder. So I would genuinely keep an open mind until the outcome of the investigation. I think it was right that we suspended those peers because we're not going to allow that to happen.