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.
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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:10
Starmer pushes PM on childcare. Pic: Sky News Screengrab
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”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:24
‘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.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
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.
A teenage girl who was killed after getting out of a police car on the M5 in Somerset has been named.
Tamzin Hall, 17 and from Wellington, was hit by a vehicle that was travelling southbound between junction 24 for Bridgwater and junction 25 for Taunton shortly after 11pm on Monday.
She had exited a police vehicle that had stopped on the northbound side of the motorway while transporting her.
A mandatory referral was made to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is now carrying out its own investigation into what happened.
The police watchdog, the IOPC, has been asked to investigate.
In a statement, director David Ford, said: “This was a truly tragic incident and my thoughts are with Tamzin’s family and friends and everyone affected by the events of that evening.
“We are contacting her family to express our sympathies, explain our role, and set out how our investigation will progress. We will keep them fully updated as our investigation continues.”
Paramedics attended the motorway within minutes of the girl being hit but she was pronounced dead at the scene.
The motorway was closed in both directions while investigations took place. It was fully reopened shortly after 11am on Tuesday, Nationals Highways said.
A survivors group advocating for women allegedly assaulted by Mohamed al Fayed has said it is “grateful another abuser has been unmasked”, after allegations his brother Salah also participated in the abuse.
Justice for Harrods Survivors says it has “credible evidence” suggesting the sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated at Harrods and the billionaire’s properties “was not limited to Mr al Fayed himself”.
The group’s statement comes after three women told BBC News they were sexually assaulted by al Fayed’s brother, Salah.
One woman said she was raped by Mohamed al Fayed while working at Harrods.
Helen, who has waived her right to anonymity, said she then took a job working for his brother as an escape. She alleges she was drugged and sexually assaulted while working at Salah’s home on Park Lane, London.
Two other women have told the BBC they were taken to Monaco and the South of France, where Salah sexually abused them.
The Justice for Harrod Survivors representatives said: “We are proud to support the survivors of Salah Fayed’s abuse and are committed to achieving justice for them, no matter what it takes.”
The group added it “looks forward to the others on whom we have credible evidence – whether abusers themselves or enablers facilitating that abuse – being exposed in due course”.
Salah was one of the three Fayed brothers who co-owned Harrods.
The business, which was sold to Qatar Holdings when Mohamed al Fayed retired in 2010, has said it “supports the bravery of these women in coming forward”.
A statement issued by the famous store on Thursday evening continued: “We encourage these survivors to come forward and make their claims to the Harrods scheme, where they can apply for compensation, as well as support from a counselling perspective and through an independent survivor advocate.
“We also hope that they are looking at every appropriate avenue to them in their pursuit of justice, whether that be Harrods, the police or the Fayed family and estate.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
13:55
Bianca Gascoigne speaks about Al Fayed abuse
The Justice for Harrods Survivors group previously said more than 400 people had contacted them regarding accusations about Mohamed al Fayed, who died last year.
One of those alleged to have been abused is Bianca Gascoigne, the daughter of former England player Paul.
Speaking to Sky News in October, Gascoigne said she was groomed and sexually assaulted by al Fayed when she worked at Harrods as a teenager.
Wes Streeting “crossed the line” by opposing assisted dying in public and the argument shouldn’t “come down to resources”, a Labour peer has said.
Speaking on Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunctionpodcast, Baroness Harriet Harman criticised the health secretary for revealing how he is going to vote on the matter when it comes before parliament later this month.
MPs are being given a free vote, meaning they can side with their conscience and not party lines, so the government is supposed to be staying neutral.
But Mr Streeting has made clear he will vote against legalising assisted dying, citing concerns end-of-life care is not good enough for people to make an informed choice, and that some could feel pressured into the decision to save the NHS money.
Baroness Harman said Mr Streeting has “crossed the line in two ways”.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
“He should not have said how he was going to vote, because that breaches neutrality and sends a signal,” she said.
“And secondly… he’s said the problem is that it will cost money to bring in an assisted dying measure, and therefore he will have to cut other services.
Advertisement
“But paradoxically, he also said it would be a slippery slope because people will be forced to bring about their own death in order to save the NHS money. Well, it can’t be doing both things.
“It can’t be both costing the NHS money and saving the NHS money.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:09
Review into assisted dying costs
Baroness Harman said the argument “should not come down to resources” as it is a “huge moral issue” affecting “only a tiny number of people”.
She added that people should not mistake Mr Streeting for being “a kind of proxy for Keir Starmer”.
“The government is genuinely neutral and all of those backbenchers, they can vote whichever way they want,” she added.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously expressed support for assisted dying, but it is not clear how he intends to vote on the issue or if he will make his decision public ahead of time.
The cabinet has varying views on the topic, with the likes of Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood siding with Mr Streeting in her opposition but Energy Secretary Ed Miliband being for it.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is being championed by Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater, who wants to give people with six months left to live the choice to end their lives.
Under her proposals, two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge must give their approval.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:30
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater discusses End of Life Bill
The bill will also include punishments of up to 14 years in prison for those who break the law, including coercing someone into ending their own life.
MPs will debate and vote on the legislation on 29 November, in what will be the first Commons vote on assisted dying since 2015, when the proposal was defeated.