Adam Boulton: Are we in for one of the ‘dirtiest’ election campaigns ever?

Published

2 years ago

January 28, 2024

admin

There was general agreement at the Institute for Government’s Annual conference last week that it would be a good thing for Britain if this year’s election campaign is not “dirty”.

This highfalutin notion was shot down in seconds with equally universal assumption by the assembled politicians and policy wonks that “that is not going to happen”.

A clean campaign would concentrate on policies and competence.

A dirty campaign is built around slurs, distortions and untruths, with those competing for votes slinging mud at each other.

A lot of factors, headed by booming social media, are coming together to suggest that this year we may see one of the dirtiest election campaigns ever.

The IFG delegates had to wait less than a day for their forebodings to come true. There might have been a lot to talk about at Prime Minister’s Questions.

The Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) bill struggling through parliament. The world order threatened by ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Israel and the Red Sea.

Record NHS waiting lists are the public’s number one concern. The chancellor is contemplating two rounds of tax cuts.

But no, the leader of the opposition chose to exchange personal insults, much of it based on dubious content circulating on smartphones.

Fair’s fair, Sir Keir Starmer started it this time, but Rishi Sunak had a well-stocked pile to fling back.

Starmer opened up referring to a couple of brief unofficial clips posted online. One showing the prime minister “collapsing in laughter when he was asked by a member of the public about the NHS waiting lists”.

The other “accidentally record[ing] a candid video for Nigel Farage“.

Sunak, who seldom passes up a chance to brand Starmer as a lefty London lawyer, shot back that he is “the man who takes the knee, who wanted to abolish the monarchy, and who still does not know what a woman is”.

Previously Starmer “chose to represent a now-proscribed terrorist group” Hizb ut-Tahrir, and “served” Jeremy Corbyn.

Both men knew that the insults they were sticking on each other were essentially unjustified distortions of the other, but that was what they chose to put on the national agenda at the most scrutinized moment of the political week.

Starmer has explicitly changed his party and his previous positions.

Under scrutiny, he has clarified and explained each of the specific acts detailed. It is a core principle of British justice that advocates are not surrogates for their clients.

Sunak was not laughing at the people he was talking to and spoke to them properly after the end of the clip.

The alleged greeting to Farage was repurposing an online meme which allows any name, in this case “Nigel”, to be put into the prime minister’s mouth.

Neither Sunak nor Starmer are classic alpha males.

Sunak comes across as a whiny or petulant geek, Starmer seems hesitant, overcautious and inclined to blame others.

Perhaps this is why they feel the need to overcompensate by acting rough and tough. Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, also has his moments of fabricated machismo.

The leaders set the tone and their petulance has been picked up in the campaigning efforts of their underlings and supporters.

Prime minister Boris Johnson took up an online distortion that Starmer had failed, when he was director of public prosecutions, to take action against Jimmy Savile.

This prompted the senior Downing Street aide Munira Mirza to resign protesting that this was “not the normal cut and thrust of politics”.

It soon would be. Labour cited Johnson’s attack as justification for their later personalised digital poster attacks on Rishi Sunak including the smear that he “doesn’t think adults convicted of sexually abusing children should go to prison”.

Since then Keir Starmer has gone out of his way not to back down or apologise; following the code of the playground he promises to punch back hard against any attacks.

At the start of election year he rejected an invitation from Beth Rigby to take up Michelle Obama’s famous recommendation: “When they go low, we go high”.

Instead, he told Sky News’ political editor: “If they want to go with fire, we will meet their fire with fire”.

Donald Trump crafts insults – Lyin’ Ted, Sleepy Joe, Ron DeSanctimonious – with cruel genius and gets away with fabulations.

There is only one Trump; honest political strivers should not try to copy him.

Opinion polls after personalised attacks usually show that support for both sides goes down, though more for the target than the attacker.

This should give all the party leaders something to think about, especially since public respect for politicians is at a record low and a low or differential turnout could be a major factor.

Starmer needs to mobilise enthusiasm for his leadership, not dent it. Sunak’s standing is already low and doesn’t want to drop further.

This government raised spending limits for the election campaign to £35m. Much of it will go on direct messaging to voters – which is harder to police than election broadcasts and billboards.

During the 2019 campaign, the Conservatives spent over a million on Facebook, much of it on messages disparaging Jeremy Corbyn.

Both Labour and Conservatives are already spending over a million a month on Facebook advertising.

Then there is what partisan supporters choose to put up on social media independently.

Labour has already advised its supporters to use humour.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Even without explicitly taking sides humourists such as Coldwar Steve and Trumpton, liked and retweeted, can make some political weather, often by lowering the tone.

Political propagandising is much more equal opportunity than it used to be. Anyone can post.

On the other hand, the newspapers and other mainstream media no longer have a near monopoly.

In 1997 when The Sun ran its famous “Nightmare on Kinnock Street” and “Will the Last Person to Leave Britain Please Turn Off the Lights” attacks on Labour, the paper’s circulation was 3.9 million.

The last official figures released were 1.2 million in 2020.

Poster launches used to be major events in political campaigning, but who would bother with them today?

There are some worthwhile lessons to be learned from the classics.

The Saatchi brothers are celebrated for their attacking of billboards: Labour isn’t working, Labour’s tax bombshell and Labour’s Policy on Arms (showing a combat soldier surrendering hands up).

Each of these were masterpieces of wit and effort compared to the Conservatives’ adoption of the BBC newsreader caught giving the finger for “Labour when you ask for their plans to tackle immigration”.

The Saatchis’ best work riffed with precision on policy rather than personal insults.

When the Conservatives tried that with their “New Labour, New Danger” demon eyes poster it misfired; it was difficult to convincingly portray Blair as a devil when other Conservative sources were attacking him as an inexperienced Bambi.

Labour boobed depicting Cameron as a cute bicycling chameleon.

The most effective attacks at PMQs cut directly to the political issues facing the voters, rather than scuffling around in their past record for something compromising.

Mrs Thatcher struck directly and seemingly spontaneously at Michael Foot: “Afraid of an election is he? Afraid? Frightened? Frit?”.

“Weak, weak, weak,” Tony Blair gutted John Major. “You were the future once.”

Sunak, Starmer and their teams of advisors have yet to produce anything as authentic.

Something which would crystallise the political moment.

Instead, they and we can look forward to a year in the dirt as they scrabble around trying to find it.

UK

Shoreham air crash: Families mark 10 years since one of UK’s worst airshow disasters

Published

3 hours ago

August 22, 2025

admin

Shoreham air crash: Families mark 10 years since one of UK's worst airshow disasters

On the 10th anniversary of the Shoreham air disaster, the families of some of those killed have criticised the regulator for what they describe as a “shocking” ongoing attitude towards safety.

On 22 August 2015, a vintage fighter jet plummeted out of the sky and crashed into one of the busiest roads in Sussex, killing 11 men.

Most of them weren’t even watching the aerobatic display overhead when they were engulfed in a fireball that swept down the dual carriageway.

Jacob Schilt, 23, and his friend Matthew Grimstone, also 23, were driving to play in a match for their football team, Worthing United FC.

Both sets of parents are deeply angry that their beloved sons have lost their lives in this way.

“It obviously changed our lives forever, and it’s a huge reminder every 22nd of August, because it’s such a public anniversary. It’s destroyed our lives really,” his mum, Caroline Shilt, said.

“It was catastrophic for all of us,” Jacob’s father, Bob, added.

‘They had no protection’

Sue and Phil Grimstone argue that the regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), has not been held accountable for allowing the airshow to take place where it did.

“At Shoreham, the permission given by the CAA did not allow displaying aircraft to perform over paying spectators or their parked cars,” they said.

“But aircraft were permitted to fly aerobatics directly over the A27, which was in the display area, a known busy road.

“This was about ignoring the safety of people travelling on a major road in favour of having an air show. They had no protection.”

A series of catastrophic errors

The crash happened while the experienced pilot, Andy Hill, a former RAF instructor, was attempting to fly a loop in a 1950s Hawker Hunter jet.

But he made a series of catastrophic errors. His speed as the plane pitched up into the manoeuvre was far too slow, and therefore, he failed to get enough height to be able to pull out of the dive safely. The jet needed to be at least 1,500ft higher.

Mr Hill survived the crash but says he does not remember what happened, and a jury at the Old Bailey found him not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter in 2019.

When the inquest finally concluded in 2022, the coroner ruled the men had been unlawfully killed because of a series of “gross errors” committed by the pilot.

The rules around air shows have been tightened up since the crash, with stricter risk assessments, minimum height requirements, crowd protection distances, and checks on pilots.

But Jacob and Matt’s families believe the CAA still isn’t doing enough to protect people using roads near airshows, or other bystanders not attending the events themselves.

The families recently raised concerns about the Duxford airshow in a meeting with the CAA.

While aircraft are no longer allowed to fly aerobatics over the M11, they do so nearby – and can fly over the road at 200ft to reconfigure and return. If the M11 has queuing traffic in the area, the display must be stopped or curtailed.

The Grimstones believe this demonstrates accepting “an element of risk” and are frustrated that the CAA only commissioned an independent review looking at congested roads and third-party protection earlier this year.

“We feel the CAA are still dragging their feet when it comes to the safety of third parties on major roads directly near an air show,” they said.

The family have complained about the CAA to the parliamentary ombudsman.

‘There are still question marks’

Some experts also believe the CAA has questions to answer about a previous incident involving Mr Hill, after organisers of the 2014 Southport Airshow brought his display to an emergency stop because he had flown too close to the crowd, and beneath the minimum height for his display.

In its investigation into the Shoreham disaster, the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) later found that while the CAA inspector present had an informal discussion with the pilot, no further action was taken, and the incident was not reported to the AAIB.

Retired pilot Steve Colman has spent many years looking into what happened at Shoreham, and he believes the CAA failed to fulfil their statutory obligation to fully investigate and report the incident at Southport.

“You have to ask the question – if the Southport incident had been investigated, then was Shoreham more likely or less likely to have occurred?” he said. “I think there can only be one answer – it’s less likely to have occurred.”

Tim Loughton, who was the MP for Shoreham at the time, believes a balance must be struck.

“We don’t want to regulate these events out of existence completely. A lot of the smaller air shows no longer happened because they couldn’t comply with the new regulations […], but certainly there are still question marks over the way the CAA conducted and continues to conduct itself. I would welcome more parliamentary scrutiny.”

Rob Bishton, chief executive at the CAA, said: “Our thoughts remain with the families and friends of those affected by the Shoreham Airshow crash.

“Following the crash, several investigations and safety reviews were carried out to help prevent similar incidents in the future. This included an immediate review of airshow safety and a full investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. All recommendations and safety improvements from these reviews were fully implemented.

“Airshows continue to be subject to rigorous oversight to ensure the highest possible safety standards are maintained.

“At a previous airshow in 2014 the pilot involved in the Shoreham accident was instructed to abort a display by the show’s flying director. This incident was investigated by the UK Civil Aviation Authority and regulatory action was taken.”

Mr Bishton added: “As part of the work to review the safety oversight of airshows following the tragic Shoreham crash, the actions taken by the regulator following such a stop call were enhanced.”

But the families of those killed still believe much more could be done.

UK

Chris Brain: Jury discharged in trial of ex-priest who ran rave-inspired ‘cult’ group

Published

3 hours ago

August 22, 2025

admin

Chris Brain: Jury discharged in trial of ex-priest who ran rave-inspired 'cult' group

A jury has been discharged in the trial of a former Church of England priest who ran a rave-inspired “cult” group.

Christopher Brain, 68, from Wilmslow, Cheshire, was the leader of the Nine O’Clock Service (NOS) in Sheffield between 1986 and 1995.

He was charged with one count of rape and 36 counts of indecent assault between 1981 and 1995 against 13 women.

Brain, who denied all the charges, was found guilty of 17 counts of indecent assault relating to nine women and acquitted of 15 similar charges.

The 11-strong jury, sitting at Inner London Crown Court, was discharged by Judge Freya Newbery on Thursday after failing to reach a verdict on five counts, having started deliberations on 12 August.

The judge told the jurors: “I am going to discharge you now on those counts. For you, it all comes to an end now. I am really grateful for such a lot of time that you have given.”

A further hearing to determine whether prosecutors believe there are grounds for a retrial for the charges was set for 4 September.

The prosecution previously told jurors that NOS, which was aimed at younger people, “presented itself to the outside world as a progressive force for good”.

But the court heard Brain “dominated and abused his position” to sexually assault a “staggering number of women from his congregation”, including during massages.

He denied brainwashing people to satisfy his sexual desires or ostracising female followers from friends and family.

Church of England: ‘Truly sorry’

Joanne Grenfell, lead bishop for safeguarding in the Church of England, and Alexander Kubeyinje, national safeguarding director, released a joint statement in which they said they were “truly sorry”.

“Our thoughts and prayers today are with the women who have bravely come forward to share their testimonies.

“The conviction of Chris Brain on 17 counts of indecent assault has resulted in lasting damage to their lives, and they were an appalling abuse of power in leadership that should never have happened. We are truly sorry.”

In a statement, Pete Wilcox, Bishop of Sheffield, echoed that same comment, adding that he was “deeply sorry” for the harm suffered.

“Where concerns were raised in the past and were not acted upon properly, that was a failing of the Church. For those institutional failures, I offer an unreserved apology. We are committed to supporting those affected.

“Words will never undo the harm that has been caused. We will, however, continue to work to ensure the Church is a safe place for everyone.”

He added the diocese would continue to cooperate with police, adding that there was a safeguarding team available to offer support and counselling.

‘Devious and arrogant sexual predator’

Detective Superintendent Eleanor Welsh, senior investigating officer at South Yorkshire Police, said: “Brain is a devious and arrogant sexual predator who caused these women significant harm through his abuse of power and cruel manipulation of their faith.

“While I am pleased with the guilty verdicts, I know for the victims it can never take away what Brain did to them. However, I hope that it brings some comfort to know they have had a voice, they have been heard, and the jury has accepted that Brain is a serial sex offender.”

‘Lycra Lovelies’ looked after Brain

At its peak, the weekly Nine O’Clock Service – held at 9pm on a Sunday – attracted up to 600 people.

Prosecutors say a “homebase” team of “attractive women”, wearing lingerie or other revealing clothing, known as “the Lycra Lovelies” or “the Lycra Nuns”, was set up to look after Brain, his wife and his daughter at their home.

The women said they slept on the floor and were issued with detailed instructions on how to prepare meals, clean, answer the phone, and even how to treat the family dog, the court heard.

Some members donated large sums of money, gave up their inheritances or homes to NOS and lived in poverty, the jury was told.

Brain’s lifestyle was described as “extravagant” in comparison, as he had a mobile phone and car, wore designer clothes and ate at nice restaurants.

‘Chrisnapping’

One woman described Brain as a “predator hiding in plain sight” who “would pick off women who he viewed as vulnerable”.

The court heard the term “Chrisnapped” was used to describe how Brain would pick up women off the street in his car before he stroked their legs and talked about sex.

NOS collapsed in 1994 after women made allegations about Brain and the Church of England set up places for vulnerable alleged victims to get help and therapy.

Retired Bishop Stephen Lowe said in pre-recorded evidence that he confronted Brain about claims he had “abused” 20 to 40 women, and he replied: “I thought it was more, maybe perhaps double”.

‘Raging narcissism’

Jurors were also told Brain’s Church of England ordination was “fast-tracked” in 1991, and he wore the same cassock worn by actor Robert De Niro in the movie “The Mission” at the ceremony.

Brain resigned from his holy orders in 1995 amid “enormous media interest” but prosecutors suggested he agreed to be interviewed for a BBC Everyman documentary because of his “raging narcissism”.

In the programme, Brain admitted being “involved in improper sexual conduct with a number of women”, but said this was only after a lengthy development of a friendship.

Giving evidence, Brain cut a very different figure from the charismatic cult leader described by witnesses, as he mumbled and was frequently asked to raise his voice.

He told the jury that any touching was done with “100%” consent and suggested the women had “to exaggerate these things to make it either sexual or controlling” in order “to make a criminal case”.

UK

Liberty Steel’s Speciality Steels UK pushed into compulsory liquidation

Published

3 hours ago

August 22, 2025

admin

Liberty Steel's Speciality Steels UK pushed into compulsory liquidation

One of the UK’s last remaining steel companies has been pushed into compulsory liquidation – and will fall into government control.

Speciality Steels UK (SSUK), part of the Liberty Steel empire owned by metals tycoon Sanjeev Gupta, employs nearly 1,500 people at sites in Rotherham and several other locations across South Yorkshire.

Behind Tata Steel and British Steel, it is the third-largest steel producer in the country.

Politics live: New migrant stats released

Sky News reported that negotiations had been underway for a deal to rescue the firm, however, they seem to have been rendered unsuccessful.

The government-run Insolvency Service confirmed it will be acting as the liquidator. It added that Teneo Financial Advisory Limited would be assisting in running the company from now on.

While the GFG Alliance, the holding company, says it is disappointed by the decision, local politicians and unions are highly critical of the group.

The government is taking over – but it doesn’t want to own SSUK

Gurpreet Narwan

Business and economics correspondent

@gurpreetnarwan

The collapse of Speciality Steel UK (SSUK), the UK’s third-largest steel producer, did not come as a surprise to government officials, who have in recent days been planning for this outcome.

After all, the business has been limping on for some time, weighed down by financial mismanagement and a mounting debt pile. Problems began in 2021 for GFG Alliance – the holding company, which is a conglomerate run by the metals magnate Sanjeev Gupta. Its main lender, Greensill Capital, collapsed with £3.7bn of loans to GFG still outstanding. Administrators for Greensill are still trying to recover the money.

There have been legal claims and probes since then, although GFG denies any wrongdoing. The true scale of SSUK’s financial woes are not even known because the company has not filed audited accounts for more than five years. Sanjeev Gupta is being prosecuted for failing to file accounts for many of his other businesses too.

SSUK’s creditors pushed for the company’s liquidation, but the government was braced to step in. However, the development does little to provide certainty for the business’s 1,500 workers in South Yorkshire.

The government will cover wages and costs for now but, as a letter sent by the Department for Business and Trade made clear earlier this month, the government has no intention to “own SSUK”. As with British Steel, which collapsed back in April (albeit for different reasons), the government is stepping up, but is hoping a new buyer will be found soon.

The government says wages will continue to be paid by the liquidator. A spokesperson adds that the government is still “committed to a bright and sustainable future for steelmaking and steel-making jobs in the UK”.

Financial assistance was not able to be given to SSUK by the government due to its existing financial and corporate challenges, including ownership and management.

In a statement today, GFG’s chief transformational officer, Jeffrey Kabel said: “The decision to push Speciality Steel UK into compulsory liquidation, especially when we have support from the world’s largest asset manager to resume operations and facilitate creditor recovery, is irrational.

“The plan that GFG presented to the court would have secured new investment in the UK steel industry, protecting jobs and establishing a sustainable operational platform under a new governance structure with independent oversight.

“Instead, liquidation will now impose prolonged uncertainty and significant costs on UK taxpayers for settlements and related expenses, despite the availability of a commercial solution.

“Liberty has pursued all options to make its SSUK viable, including efficiency improvements, reorganisations, customer support, several attempts to find a buyer for the business and intensive negotiations with creditors to restructure debt liabilities. Liberty’s shareholder has invested nearly £200m, recognising the vital role steel plays in supplying the UK’s strategic defence, aerospace and energy industries.

“GFG will now continue to advance its bid for the business in collaboration with prospective debt and equity partners and will present its plan to the official receiver. GFG continues to believe it has the ideas, management expertise and commitment to lead SSUK into the future and attract major investment. GFG’s other significant business interests in the UK remain unaffected.

“Despite many challenges facing the group and the difficult market conditions, GFG has invested over £2bn into the UK economy since 2013, ensuring the survival of many GFG businesses despite operating losses and safeguarding thousands of jobs that would otherwise have been lost.”

Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, said GFG’s statement was “full of hollow promises”.

She added: “We know Liberty is a golden goose, but one they have starved for years.

“The speciality steel we make is unique and in high demand, it makes no financial sense that GFG furloughed the plant for nearly two years.

“Strategically, the government cannot allow Liberty Steel to fail. I am confident they will do all in their power to let it flourish.”

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈 

Charlotte Brumpton-Childs, the national officer for the GMB union, also attacked GFG.

She said: “This is another tragedy for UK steel – and the people of South Yorkshire – this time brought on by years of chronic mismanagement by the owners.

“But this represents an opportunity for the UK government to take decisive action – as it did with British Steel – to protect this vital UK industry.”

A government spokesperson said: “We know this will be a deeply worrying time for staff and their families, but we remain committed to a bright and sustainable future for steelmaking and steel-making jobs in the UK.

“It is now for the independent Official Receiver to carry out their duties as liquidator, including ensuring employees are paid, while we also make sure staff and local communities are supported.”