I think Mr Letts has taken an at best nebulous concept and spun it into some kind of 'left-ist' conspiracy theory.
The notion that famous people gave voice to their concerns is almost as old as fame itself, and with the ever increasing outlets for such opinions, it can be perceived that they have far more sway than is actually true.
The key is perception. At one end of the scale, people who think Eddie Izzard is funny, and Stepeh Fry is wise arfe unliely to be swayed in their political opinions by such views.
Similarly, at the other end of the scale, people who think that Katie Price or Ant & Dec are movers and shakers at the seat of power are equally unlikely to take their opinions as gospel.
Why? because the public are not, despite the chattering classes ( of whom Mr Letts is a senior figure) as gullible as all that.
It is the likes of Mr Letts who pass ludicrous comments of the like that Shilpa Shetty should fund the Asian network because she is rich enough. using that logic, Mr Cameron should fund the BBC!
This is simply designed - as is so much of the Mail's opinion pieces - to whip up the froth on the Notting Hill cappucinos - the vast majority do not bother to read what Mr Letts says - and would be less than impressed with his faulty logic if they did.