Conservative Party
North Tyneside Conservatives ‘Impersonate Labour’ in Alleged Bid to ‘Confuse the Electorate’ Over Suspended Candidate
The election race in North Tyneside Council has been turbulent, as local elections go. Last week, the Labour Party suspended its candidate in the Preston Grange ward over anti-Israel social media posts calling it a “terrorist nation” and comparing the country to Nazi Germany over the killings in Gaza.
Labour pulled support for Abdur Razaq on 25 April, but it was too late to change the name on the ballot paper.
In response to the suspension, the local Conservative Party has circulated red leaflets that at first look appear to come from Labour, urging people not to vote for the party, and implying that it has disavowed candidates in a ward unrelated to Preston Grange.
Byline Times was made aware of a leaflet circulated in the Tynemouth ward following Razaq’s suspension, which was branded in the same shade of red as Labour leaflets and carried the headline “Important: Local Labour Candidate Suspended”.
The 'misleading' leaflet from local Conservatives. Photo: John Giddens/Byline Times
The leaflet informs the reader that Razaq, who is not named and referred to only as “a local Labour Party candidate”, has been suspended, but because it is a recent decision, he will still be on the ballot as a Labour candidate.
The leaflet does not mention that it is from the Conservative Party, but the fine print does state that it has been promoted by Liam Bones, the council’s Conservative Group Leader on behalf of three councillors in the Tynemouth ward.
Tom Bailey, a Labour candidate for Tynemouth, told Byline Times: “The Tories have been putting these leaflets through doors in a deliberate attempt to confuse the electorate, to suggest that one of us might not be an officially endorsed candidate”.
He added: “This is part of a long pattern of behaviour by this local party. In the past they might have used a slightly darker shade of red. This is the furthest they’ve gone in outright copying Labour branding.”
John Giddons, the Tynemouth resident who brought the leaflet to the attention of Byline Times, said: “They've done this before actually over the last few years... I think this is dirty campaigning and typical of the Tories around here."
Accusing the party of being “desperate”, he added: “My local WhatsApp community group, which tends to avoid politics, has been busy with all posts about the leaflet condemning it as dirty work by the Conservative candidates.”
The leaflet circulated in Tynemouth implored voters not to vote for Labour, telling them that the unnamed councillor would sit as an independent if they won the ward, giving it the appearance of a disavowal from the Labour Party.
The leaflet also claimed “there are several other local candidates on the ballot paper. Please do not support Labour in this election”.
The tactic of a leaflet that is not obviously from the Conservatives, telling voters to vote for any candidate apart from Labour in an attempt to split votes, has also been used by Susan Hall in the London Mayoral Election campaign.
In another 'dirty campaigning’ row, local Conservative councillor Liam Bones – who appears to be named on the latest leaflet as ‘L Bones’ – was formally censured by North Tyneside Council last year after claiming on his website that former Deputy Mayor, Jim Allan, was the “laziest Labour councillor” and that he had “received over £150,000 in allowances – but didn’t think it was necessary to attend the meetings he was being paid to go to”. The reality was that Mr Allan had stepped back from duties due to severe illness.
North Tyneside Conservative Party was approached for comment.
This is part of our VoteWatch election investigation series. Got a story tip? Contact votewatch24@bylinetimes.com
Susan Hall Campaigns with Tommy Robinson Supporting Anti-ULEZ Activist Who ‘Applauds’ Vandals and Believes Islamists are in Charge of Britain
The Conservative candidate for London mayor, Susan Hall has repeatedly attended protests and posed at campaign events with a prominent anti-ULEZ activist who has said that he "applauds" the criminal destruction of TfL property, and who has suggested that "Islamists" are in charge of the country and trying to "rig" the general election, Byline Times can reveal.
Hall traveled on her campaign bus on Monday to meet and pose for photos with Nick Arlett, who runs the 'Action against ULEZ' group and has been campaigning for his supporters to back the Conservative candidate in Thursday’s election against Sadiq Khan.
Hall was photographed by journalists posing with Arlett alongside vehicles covered with banners backing Hall and urging voters to oust Khan. Arlett has previously shared photos on social media of himself arm in arm with Hall at another event, as well as a video of her attending one of their protests and thanking the campaigners for "everything that you do".
Hall's decision to campaign alongside Arlett comes despite him openly sharing his extreme views online.
On his Facebook page, he has shared posts backing Tommy Robinson, suggested the UK will "fall" to Islam and falsely claimed that Khan has said he will prioritise Muslims for "housing, free school meals, free training for better jobs". In February he posted an image from GB News with the headline 'Islamists in Charge of Britain', which he accompanied with the text "could not agree more." Other posts shared by Arlett include memes suggesting white people are being replaced by Muslims and a photo of two signs reading "we cater to white trade only" and "we serve colored carry out only".
Arlett, who is a leading figure in the anti-ULEZ campaign movement, has also shared posts promoting the actions of ‘blade runners’ who destroy ULEZ cameras.
"Anybody that is silly enough to think blade runners will go away are kidding themselves”, he told Bloomberg last year. “I don’t condone it, but I understand it and I applaud it.”
Hall has previously claimed that tackling crime in London would be her "top priority"
However, Arlett's activities brought him to the attention of the police at one recent protest, after which supporters shared video of him being arrested by officers. Arlett was contacted for comment but had not responded by time of publication.
Hall's repeated association with extreme anti-ULEZ protestors is part of a deliberate strategy by her party's campaign to exploit opposition to Khan's clean air policies. A report by Greenpeace revealed this week that Conservative campaigners have set up a network of anti-ULEZ Facebook groups, which are filled with Islamophobic and racist comments and conspiracy theories about Khan. Some of the groups have been joined by Hall and other senior Conservative politicians including the policing minister Chris Philp.
Hall's association with Arlett comes after it was revealed that she had also shared multiple offensive posts on her own Twitter account, including liking a post using the Islamophobic term Londonistan. Hall has also previously suggested that Jewish Londoners should be “frightened” of London’s Muslim mayor and claimed that black people have a “problem with crime.”
Susan Hall's campaign did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.
Conservative London Mayoral Candidate Susan Hall Suggests Sadiq Khan Will Win in ‘Desperate’ Leaflet Accused of Voter Suppression
In an election replete with questionable campaign tactics – from data harvesting to campaign leaflets posing as local newspapers – a new tactic by Conservative London mayoral candidate Susan Hall has come to light.
A leaflet circulated to some Londoners suggests to voters that Labour's Sadiq Khan is inevitably going to win – in a move some election observers suspect is designed to split or de-motivate his voter base.
A letter written by Steve Tuckwell, Conservative MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip aimed at postal voters, claims that “the Mayor thinks he is going to win this election easily. This means we have the chance to make a difference because if Sadiq wins by a smaller margin than he is expecting, he will be forced to sit up and listen”.
The campaign leaflet only mentions Susan Hall and the Conservative Party in the legally-required small print at the bottom of the leaflet. Tuckwell signs off the letter as simply 'MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip’, without mentioning which party he represents.
Tom Brake, a former Liberal Democrat MP and the director of campaigning group Unlock Democracy, said: “Candidates should always be upfront in their letters and leaflets about who the literature they are circulating is actually from, with their name and party prominent. As well as the content being factually correct, this is the least voters should expect from those seeking to represent them.”
The leaflet attacks Khan over building tower blocks “instead of building the family homes that Londoners need”, police station closures, and the ULEZ tax – opposition to which has been a key plank of Hall’s campaign for mayor.
Rather than encouraging postal voters to vote for the Conservative Party, the leaflet tells people to vote for “someone else”.
Only the URL mentions the name of the Conservative Party
Part two of the offending leaflet, first shared by Local Democracy Reporter Noah Vickers
Campaigners for democratic reform told Byline Times that this kind of campaign tactic was encouraged by the changes to the voting system for London mayor.
Alberto Smith, of electoral reform campaign group Make Votes Matter, said: "This sort of tactic is a direct consequence of the change to the voting system for mayoral elections
Steve Tuckwell's party introduced. Deliberately or not, it acknowledges the reality that, under First Past the Post, a majority of Londoners' votes will potentially count for nothing.
"If you don't want politicians to take votes for granted, don't introduce a system that denies voters real choice."
London mayoral elections previously used a supplementary vote system, which allowed voters to pick a second-preference candidate in case their first choice did not make it into the top two.
In 2022, the Government changed the voting system to the 'winner takes all’ First Past the Post system, after Khan beat Conservative candidate Shaun Bailey in 2021 comfortably with second-choice votes, but only narrowly on first choice votes.
Neal Lawson, director of Compass, a think tank which promotes electoral reform, told Byline Times: “This is a last-ditch desperate tactic from the Tories to push progressives apart and win power by the back door. Conservatives know they can win on a minority share of the vote not on their own merits, but by sowing division amongst their opponents. When we divide, they conquer.
“This is partly because of the switch from SV to FPTP for mayoral elections, which represents a real backwards step for our democracy and only serves to deny voters choice.”
For political marketing expert Bendict Pringle, the leaflet was "an interesting example of voter suppression by Susan Hall".
"Distributed in Lambeth, a Labour stronghold, it asks voters to help prevent Sadiq from winning by a big margin," he said. "[There's] no suggestion of voting Conservative or of the Conservative Party.
"The Susan Hall campaign know the chances of getting someone in Lambeth to vote Tory is low, so instead focuses on getting them to vote for anyone but Sadiq. If it’s successful it will help her close the gap."
Ashok Viswanathan, co-founder and former director of Operation Black Vote and CEO of
PeoplePower, said “the Electoral Commission too must watch this campaign like hawks for the development of these seemingly benign underhand tactics, for they are anything but benign".
He argued that Hall’s campaign was reminiscent of American electioneering and was “a sign of the slow creep into UK politics of the toxicity of American SuperPACS – those faceless wonders of US electioneering".
"These tactics only increase division, spread misinformation, and cause confusion – and are a threat to modern democracy," he added. "We must ensure balance and transparency are at the heart of democratic elections and all election campaign funding.”
During last year's local elections in Norwich, a Conservative Party leaflet was reportedly delivered to a "strongly Labour voting area", telling people "you don't need to take any ID in order to vote" – which was factually incorrect and risked disenfranchising voters.
Conservative London Assembly Member Susan Hall and Conservative MP Steve Tuckwell did not respond to a request for comment.
It is unclear where and how widely the leaflets were distributed.
Additional reporting by Josiah Mortimer
This is part of our VoteWatch election investigation series. Got a story tip? Contact votewatch24@bylinetimes.com
Susan Hall Voted to Raise Council Tax Despite Condemning Sadiq Khan for Doing the Same
Susan Hall, the Conservative Party candidate for London mayor, voted for a 2023 hike in council tax as a councillor in Harrow despite condemning Sadiq Khan over his capital-wide tax rises.
Harrow has the third highest average rate of council tax of any London borough at over £2000 from April 2024, according to analysis by the BBC’s Local Democracy Reporting Service. Hall was previously highly critical of Harrow’s high rates of council tax when Labour controlled the council, telling the Harrow Times in 2017 that, “Labour’s mismanagement of Harrow’s finances are punishing our residents with yearly tax rises”.
In February, Hall’s council increased council tax by the maximum legal amount, 5%, boosting the local authority’s coffers by £7.69 million.
Hall defended herself over the the increase when questioned by Byline Times, saying she had been absent for the vote, and added: “I’m not going to comment on [council] tax…It’s the first meeting I’ve missed in 18 years. I can be forgiven for missing one.”
Hall is in line to receive a 35% increase in her councillor allowance this year after the licensing committee that she chairs approved an increase from £2500 a year to £4,382. On this matter she told Byline Times: “I’ve got thoughts on that, of course I do, it’s just who I share them with.”
In 2023, Hall was present to vote on the rise of Council Tax, and voted in favour of an increase of 5.9%.
That motion also included an increase in the Councillor’s allowance from a base rate of £8,561 to £9,063, a rise of 5.9%.
Hall did is yet to respond to requests to comment from Byline Times.
Hall attacked Khan on X, formerly Twitter, over London-wide council tax hikes (for the so-called Mayor’s precept) on 23 January 2023 - one month before she voted to increase council tax in Harrow.
Giving context to the tax increase in their budget document, council bosses wrote: “The Council’s revenue support grant has reduced from £50.5m to £1.825m (after accounting for the Council Tax Subsidy Admin Grant of £256k which is now subsumed into RSG).
The Council does receive other grant funding to support services, in 2022/23 this totalled £366m. However, these grants are all ring-fenced to areas of activity and cannot be used to support the core budget, for example the Dedicated Schools Grant of £143m.
It went on: “… is increasing exponentially creating unfunded budget pressures […]. The impact of this is that the Council is heavily reliant on Council Tax to fund its core services. In 2022/23 80% of the Council’s net revenue budget of £183.3m is funded from Council Tax”.
A January 2024 analysis by the Guardian of the effect of 13 years of austerity on local Government across the UK found that per person spending had been slashed across a wide range of council services including a reduction of 43% in real terms on net spending per person on cultural services, a 40% reduction in roads and transport spending, a 35% reduction on housing spending and 1/3 reduction on planning and development.
How Rishi Sunak Cooked the Books With his Defence Spending Pledge
Rishi Sunak gathered lots of approving front pages in the Conservative-supporting newspapers on Wednesday, after pledging to increase defence spending by £75 billion and pay for it by scrapping 70,000 civil servant jobs.
The £75 billion figure features prominently on the front page of the Telegraph, the Times and Daily Mail. The only problem is that it isn’t really true.
As the Prime Minister’s own spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday, the £75 billion increase is actually based on comparing the total projected defence spend in six years time, with the cash figure spent by the Government today. In other words it is based on stripping out any inflation-based increases that would otherwise have happened anyway.
As the Institute for Fiscal Studies have pointed out today, this is a deeply misleading way of presenting the increase, which is in reality closer to just £20-£25 billion in real terms.
And even once you remove this sleight of hand, the pledged increase is still significantly lower than what was promised in the Conservative Party’s own 2019 manifesto, which stated that defence spending would be “at least 0.5 per cent above inflation every year of the new Parliament.” With inflation currently at 3.2%, the Government’s new pledge to raise it to 2.5% of GDP by the end of the decade still falls a long way short.
Cooking the Books
Sunak’s book-cooking doesn’t stop there.
Talking about his plans on Wednesday, Sunak claimed that his pledge had been “fully costed”.
In order to justify this, he claimed that the policy would be paid for by reducing the size of the civil service by 70,000 jobs, which he suggested would save an estimated £4.5 billion a year over six years.
Now the eagle-eyed among you will notice at this point that £4.5 billion times six does not equal £75 billion.
Asked about this today, Sunak’s spokesperson confirmed yet another piece of jiggery-pokery, which is that unlike the £75 billion figure he claims to be increasing defence spending by, the £4.5 billion figure is based on real-terms figures, not cash figures.
In this way he is attempting to use two entirely different methodologies and baselines to estimate the increase in defence spending, versus the amount of money that he will need to save in order to pay for it.
In other words the Prime Minister is massively overstating the size of the increase to defence spending he plans to make, while relatively downplaying the size of the public sector cuts that he would have to make in order to pay for it.
Obviously the use of such dishonest sleights of hands should cause anyone to question how seriously we should take the PM's entire pledge. If Sunak and his team are so willing to blatantly cook the books about the real-terms costs of their policy, then any claims they make about it all being paid for just by sacking some civil servants should not be taken particularly seriously either.
And with the polls suggesting that the Prime Minister is highly unlikely to be in a position to ever actually implement, let alone pay for his announcement, the unquestioning coverage it received in today's newspapers now looks incredibly misjudged.
‘With his Poll Ratings Sinking, Sunak Goes For One More Attempt at Scapegoating the Vulnerable: The “Skivers” Revisited’
With a general election looming, it once again appears to be open season on benefits claimants and disabled people.
During a weekend welfare policy blitz, the Prime Minister pledged a new slew of curbs on benefits for disabled and chronically ill people if the Conservatives win power again. He also doubled-down on retaining the controversial two-child benefit cap, a key driver of child poverty.
The opening salvo came courtesy of a speech on Friday when Rishi Sunak decried what he called the country’s “sick note culture”, declaring that he was on a “moral mission” to reform the benefits system and tackle the “spiralling” £69 billion disability welfare costs.
Something had to be done, he said, about the growing numbers of economically inactive people who are long-term sick – in particular those deemed to have mental health problems and especially young people, too many of whom were “parked on welfare”.
If the specific language around disability and welfare sounds familiar, that’s because it is.
With terms like "sick note culture" and "parked on welfare", Sunak was operating straight from the benefits-bashing playbook wielded with great effect by consecutive Conservative administrations to demonise benefits claimants.
Since the onset of austerity 14 years ago, variations on the same toxic rhetoric have been deployed to justify years of savage cuts to social security and public services. The same rhetoric has been repeatedly leveraged to pit so-called 'hard-working’ people against anyone in need of state assistance.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation described Sunak's speech as “an irresponsible war of words on people who already aren’t getting enough support”.
As he faces record low polling numbers, the Prime Minister appears intent on giving the ‘skivers versus strivers’ trope one last whirl. In one section of his speech referring to mental health, he warned against "over-medicalising the everyday challenges and worries of life".
Among the proposals put forward – which were immediately slammed by disability charities and labelled by one as “a full-on assault on disabled people” – was a possible withdrawal of major ongoing benefits.
Sunak announced a review of Personal Independence Payments (PIP), whereby some payments might be changed to one-off rather than ongoing. As a non-means-tested benefit to help people with extra living costs due to disability or ill health, the possibility of the removal of regular essential payments sparked an understandable outcry from disabled people’s organisations.
Other proposed measures included closing benefits claims for individuals still out of work after 12 months who fail to comply with conditions for accepting available work. Another would make it harder to obtain a sick note. Sunak also asserted that the Government would look at shifting responsibility for classifying individuals as not fit for work away from GPs to other "work and health professionals".
According to the Prime Minister, too many GPs have been signing people off work by default. Yet, as many have pointed out, such an assessment belies reality.
James Taylor, director of strategy at disability charity Scope, noted for example that “much of the current levels of [economic] inactivity are because our public services are crumbling, the quality of jobs is poor, and the rate of poverty among disabled households is growing”.
However, not only did Sunak's speech represent another assault on an already ungenerous and punitive benefits system, it was also nuclear-level gaslighting.
After a decade-and-a-half of the Conservatives in power, actively shredding the social safety net, it was with profound cognitive dissonance that Sunak declared that “the values of our welfare state are timeless. They’re part of our national character” and that “we’re proud to ensure a safety net that is generous for those who genuinely need it – and fair to the taxpayers who fund it".
As concerning as the speech was, it was soon followed by an article in The Sun on Sunday, penned by Sunak, in which he reiterated some of its key tenets while also aiming fire at families in poverty. Despite calls for it to be abolished, he vowed to keep the controversial two-child benefit cap.
The two-child limit, introduced in 2017, restricts means-tested benefits to families with fewer than three children. According to the Resolution Foundation think tank, the policy leaves larger families £3,200 a year worse off, per additional child, making it a factor in rising child poverty. In 2013-2014, 34% of children in larger families were in poverty. By 2028-29 the foundation estimates that this will soar to a staggering 51%.
Abolishing the two-child limit would cost the Government in the area of £3.6 billion for 2024-25 (if at full coverage). If the policy was abandoned, it could mean as many as half a million fewer children in poverty. It should be a no-brainer politically to lift that many kids out of poverty, yet Sunak seems determined not to act.
A protestor in a wheelchair and police during a demonstration in which a group chained themselves together across Regent Street, London, in protest against the Government's welfare reforms. Photo: John Stillwell/PA
Responding to The Sun on Sunday article, Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, observed: “With child poverty at a record high, the Prime Minister has now clearly decided that making kids poor is his political priority. The two-child limit makes it harder for kids, punishing them for having brothers and sisters. It’s time to scrap this nasty policy.”
The kind of demonising, divisive rhetoric used by Sunak and others in his party to justify budget cuts and welfare reforms has tended in the past to find fertile ground with a significant portion of the electorate. This latest attempt at scapegoating, however, stinks of desperation.
The Prime Minister is clearly grasping at straws. What’s less clear is whether Labour will finally commit to abolishing cruel and unnecessary policies like the two-child limit if the party forms the next government. If nothing else, Rishi Sunak has thrown down a gauntlet.
Mary O’Hara is the author of 'The Shame Game: Overturning the Toxic Poverty Narrative’. The 10th anniversary edition of her book, 'Austerity Bites: A Journey to the Sharp End of Cuts’ in the UK will be published in September by Policy Press
Conservative Campaign Takes Surreal Turn as Party Appears to Ditch its own Colour, Logo and Name in ‘Fake Newspapers’
Voters across England have been sent mock newspapers with a bright red masthead – which on closer inspection look like Labour Party leaflets.
On further closer inspection, they turn out to be Conservative Party leaflets.
A Surrey voter was sent a red mock newspaper titled 'Godalming and Ash Future’, using the name of the constituency. On a second look, he realised it was pushing the local Conservative candidates.
Godalming resident Chris Everett told Byline Times: “There are only two mentions I could find of the word 'Conservative’ and nowhere in large print.” He could not immediately spot a legally-required imprint.
There are some positive mentions of the Government and “many of Jeremy Hunt” – the prospective Conservative candidate for the new Godalming and Ash constituency (Hunt's team has previously downplayed rumours he might step down).
Mr Everett also hit out at the leaflet's claim that, in 2019, the Government promised to recruit 20,000 extra police officers, and that this has happened.
“It is entirely dishonest: under Conservative rule, police numbers fell from a peak of 172, 600 in 2010 to just over 150,000 in 2017, a 14% fall," he said. "In fact, under Labour, police numbers rose from 198,000 in 2003 to 244,000 in 2010 – a 23% increase.
“The 'extra' Tory recruitment since 2019 has nearly made up the difference, but, contrary to the claim that police levels now are higher than in 2010, they are in fact still 0.5% below the Labour peak,” added Mr Everett, drawing on House of Commons research.
Residents in Eltham and Chislehurst in London – where voters will decide whether to back or sack Labour's London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 2 May – have also received a leaflet with a red newspaper-like masthead, dubbed ‘Eltham and Chislehurst Future’.
The 'Eltham and Chislehurst Future' mock newspaper from the Conservatives
But it appears to make no mention of London Conservative mayoral candidate Susan Hall AM, except for a tiny legally-required imprint on one page, which reads that it is “on behalf of Charlie Davis and Susan Hall”. The imprint fails to mention the Conservative Party.
Charlie Davis is the parliamentary candidate for the general election, which is expected to be some months away – meaning the leaflet is attacking Sadiq Khan but seemingly failing to promote the Conservatives’ own candidate, Susan Hall, as the electable alternative.
The leaflet almost suggests that Charlie Davis is the mayoral candidate or that Khan is the parliamentary candidate.
The leaflet contains a pseudo comment piece from a local activist
One Londoner who received the bright red leaflet, Greenwich resident John, told Byline Times: “The Conservatives are pushing party political leaflets pretending to be local newspapers. At first glance, the red header suggested to me that it was a Labour leaflet or a new local paper. Obviously not reading it, but if I didn't follow local politics I'm not sure how I'd interpret it.”
He added: “I just get frustrated with the tactics being used in politics. Most of this leaflet is spin using selective stats to push a narrative and if I'm honest I find it insulting. As a point of principle, most people in their day to day lives don't use underhand tactics to get by because they are decent individuals.
"Why a political party would believe that basing their campaigning on exactly these tactics is a good foundation for a successful time in office is beyond me.”
Another Conservative leaflet sent out in Gloucester boosts both the Police and Crime Commissioner candidate – elected on 2 May – and parliamentary candidate, the latter of which will not be elected for months. Again, it uses a red masthead design, which is likely to be distributed by Conservative Party headquarters.
One voter, Sophie of Gloucester, received it and said: “[At] first glance you’d think it was Labour, but actually [it’s] promoting the Conservatives. Why don’t they want to use their usual blue I wonder?”
Derek, of Cheltenham, replied on NextDoor: “Probably because most people would bin it immediately.”
Another local voter, Marie, added: “We thought it was Labour canvassing.”
Sophie, who received the leaflet, said: “The Conservative brand has become so toxic that individual MPs who want to cling onto their seats will do anything.”
Stephen, of Cheltenham, noted that Conservative MPs are now putting out leaflets with “no mention of [the] Conservatives”. “They are more worried about losing their seats than supporting the party they are supposed to,” he said.
Voters who spoke to Byline Times are questioning whether the Conservative Party brand is now so toxic that they have ditched their own colours, logo and name.
Conservative Party HQ was contacted for comment.
Spotted something strange ahead of the local elections? If you have a political story or tip-off, email josiah@bylinetimes.com
Rishi Sunak’s Rwandan Nightmare is Pushing His Government Beyond Reason
"We are reasonable people, trying to do a reasonable thing," said Rishi Sunak on Monday, as he defended his plans to push ahead with deporting people to Rwanda this summer.
His claim of reasonableness is a curious one. In order to fulfil his pledge, the Prime Minister has had to pass a law which directly overturns, not just the tenets of international treaties already signed up to by the UK, but a decision by the UK’s own Supreme Court that Rwanda is not a safe country.
Now it has been passed, those expected to be targeted by Sunak’s “reasonable” scheme will include refugees fleeing war and persecution, victims of modern slavery and even Afghan interpreters.
Doing so will require huge resources. In his statement yesterday the Prime Minister said he had put on standby 2,200 detention spaces, 200 caseworkers, 25 courtrooms and 150 judges who could provide “over 5,000 sitting days” to deporting asylum seekers.
At a time when the courts backlog means rape victims now have to wait almost two years for their cases to see a trial, the Prime Minister suddenly seems to have found acres of spare capacity in the system.
It won’t be cheap either. At an estimated cost of £1.8 million per deportation, the total cost is expected to reach half a billion pounds in order to deport just a few hundred of those individuals with the most legally clear-cut cases. With legal challenges, even for these cases, expected to stretch on for months, the cost could balloon much further. Meanwhile 99% of asylum cases will remain entirely untouched by the scheme.
Supporting this supposedly “reasonable” strategy this week was the Deputy Foreign Secretary Andrew Mitchell, who told the BBC that the Government was united behind the plan, while suggesting that critics of it were somehow “racist”.
This again feels like a curious claim, coming as it does from a man who just two years ago spoke up loudly and passionately against the scheme, which he described as “a breach of our international undertakings, bad for our country’s and the Conservative Party’s reputation, eye-wateringly expensive, and most unlikely to achieve its aim”.
Mitchell was right back then, just as Sunak himself was right when he reportedly sought to block the scheme while he was Chancellor and just as his current Home Secretary James Cleverly was right when he reportedly privately described the plans as “batshit”.
Yet all three men are now seeking to convince us that the same unworkable scheme they previously completely saw through, is now a moral imperative for the whole nation to get behind.
Voters Don't Believe Rwanda Will Work
The public are yet to be convinced, however. Although new polling conducted last week by pollsters We Think for this paper, suggests that voters are narrowly more likely to support the scheme than oppose it, by 42% to 33%, those backing the scheme appear to have little hope of it actually achieving Sunak’s aims.
According to the poll, just 26% of those UK voters surveyed believe the scheme will make a “real difference” to the numbers coming to the UK, compared to 54% who believe it will not make a real difference.
Even exclusively among current Conservative voters, the poll suggests that more people believe the scheme will not make any real difference to migrant numbers (44%) than believe it will (43%).
In any case, the argument may not be properly tested any time soon. Sunak’s pledge this week that flights will definitely take off “this summer” follows hot on the heels of his previous pledge that they would definitely take off by this spring, and his former Home Secretary’s pledge that they would have definitely taken off by last summer.
In reality legal challenges to the deportations are likely to be lengthy with the possibility of the entire scheme ending up in a major Cabinet row over whether the UK should ignore, or simply quit the European Court of Human Rights in order to proceed with the flights.
And even if ministers do somehow overcome these challenges and get flights off before the general election, the numbers of potential deportees able to be accommodated by the scheme are so small that it is highly unlikely to act as any meaningful deterrent to those still seeking to come to the UK. To put the numbers into context, in just two days earlier this month 758 people arrived by small boat to the UK, more than twice the capacity of the entire Rwanda scheme.
And even if that capacity could be somehow massively expanded, it is not clear that it would have anything like the deterrent effect Sunak predicts. As Mitchell himself commented two years ago, “Nor will people sent to Rwanda necessarily stay there; having already shown determination to start a new life in UK, they will start their long weary journey all over again.
“This is one of the reasons the Israeli government abandoned their attempt at a similar scheme with Rwanda.
The further risk is that the very existence of the scheme could simply mean that more asylum seekers opt to evade the authorities altogether. As Mitchell put it: "For those arriving in the UK illicitly, once the scheme is up and running, there is a far greater likelihood of them disappearing within the UK unaccounted for and unaccountable.”
This therefore poses the question as to why bother? Why push ahead with a scheme that has uncertain public support, is hugely expensive, and is highly unlikely to actually work?
The answer is that despite Sunak’s claim to “reason” the Rwanda scheme is in reality about the complete opposite. Like Donald Trump’s pledge to “build a wall” which never actually got built, Sunak’s flights to Rwanda are a deliberate appeal to the imagined emotions and prejudices of the electorate.
It is also possible that the scheme is deliberately designed to be blocked, with the Conservatives hoping to turn the general election into a Brexit-style referendum on whether to quit “foreign courts” and deport “foreign criminals.”
Yet the UK is not the US, and Sunak is not Trump. And with polls suggesting that the public's overwhelming priorities for Government action are the cost of living and the NHS, Sunak's Rwandan retreat only risks making him look even more out of touch with the electorate than he already does.
So far none of this appears to be fazing our so-called "reasonable" Prime Minister, who is instead betting absolutely everything on drawing an electoral line with the Labour party, no matter what the cost to the UK exchequer, our international reputation, or the lives of those affected.
But by pushing ahead with the scheme, beyond all possible reason, Sunak's Rwandan dream risks turning into an almighty nightmare for everyone involved.
The Big Tobacco Linked Conservative MPs Opposing the Smoking Ban
Dozens of Conservative MPs on Tuesday voted against the Government’s plans to impose a smoking ban across the country.
Under the plans, anyone born after 2008 will be barred from ever buying cigarettes, with new restrictions also placed on the packaging and flavours of vapes.
Those currently opposing the planned bill include the Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch and the former Prime Minister Liz Truss, who described the plans as "unconservative".
However, many of the opponents of the bill on the Conservative benches, including some of those who spoke up in the debate on Tuesday, have links to the tobacco and vaping industries.
Here are the tobacco industry-linked Conservative MPs now opposing the ban.
Adam Afriyie
Afriyie was among those speaking against the bill in the House of Commons on Tuesday. Addressing his colleagues in the chamber, Afriyie called for the bill to be scrapped, or delayed and described the plans as “ridiculous”, while suggesting that smoking bans “do not work”.
At the start of his speech, Afriyie did refer MPs to his register of interests. However, what he did not make clear in the Chamber is that this register reveals that in the past two years he has twice accepted flights, accommodation and hospitality from the tobacco industry amounting to a total value of nearly £19,000.
In 2022, Afriyie accepted transport, visa, food and accommodation with an estimated value of £10,338 from the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum to speak at a conference in Georgetown, USA.
The following year he again accepted flights, transfers, accommodation and meals from the forum, which is funded by the tobacco and vaping industries, with an estimated value £8,384 to speak at their event in Seoul, South Korea.
Afriyie told Byline Times: "I am proud of the UK’s progress in harm reduction and as a Vice Chair of the APPG on vaping I was always pleased to accept speaking invitations and to share our success story."
A spokesperson added that: "Mr Afriyie rightly referred to his interests in the register of members interests at the beginning of his contribution. This sum – which is properly recorded in the Register of Members’ Interests – represents the cost of flights, accommodation, and the visas required to attend conferences at which Mr Afriyie spoke on the UK Government’s position on tobacco harm reduction and the harms of smoking. Mr Afriyie did not receive a fee for speaking at these events.”
Liz Truss
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss was among the Conservative MPs speaking up against the new bill on Tuesday, describing it as a “virtue-signalling piece of legislation” which was “emblematic of a technocratic establishment in this country that wants to limit people’s freedom”.
Truss has had previous links to individuals and organisations with ties to the tobacco industry. In 2022 the then Prime Minister’s chief of staff Mark Fullbrook had to recuse himself from discussions about shelving the Government’s plans to tackle smoking due to his past work as a tobacco industry lobbyist.
Mark Fullbrook had previously worked on behalf of British American Tobacco and Philip Morris, the maker of Marlboro cigarettes.
Truss also appointed a number of senior advisers with ties to her favourite think tank, the Institute for Economic Affairs, which has reportedly received extensive funding from British American Tobacco.
‘Responsible Vapers’
On Tuesday a number of MPs broadly supportive of the Government’s plans, questioned why the Bill will allow the sale of vapes to continue, given the lack of evidence about the long-term impact of the habit.
However, a series of Conservative MPs stood up to defend vaping, which they described as a safer alternative to smoking.
Among them was the MP for Dartford, Gareth Johnson, who described the plans to phase out smoking as “absurd”.
What Johnson did not declare in the Chamber however, is that he is currently Chairman of the ‘All Party Parliamentary Group on Responsible Vaping’.
Earlier this week it was revealed that this cross-party group has been solely funded by the vaping industry.
According to the I newspaper the APPG received £37,500 worth of funding from the Independent British Vape Trade Association, with one former head of the standards watchdog describing as a “backdoor way of influencing Government”.
There is no suggestion of impropriety by members of the group. However, it has recently criticised plans in the bill to restrict vaping flavours, using claims which mirror those made by the vaping industry, the I reported.
Johnson was contacted for comment but had not responded by the time of publication.
A total of six Conservative members of the Vaping APPG, including Johnson and Adam Afriyie, went onto vote against the bill on Tuesday.
Among them was the Conservative MP Christopher Chope, who has previously registered thousands of pounds worth of hospitality from the tobacco industry.
Another member of the APPG, Graham Brady, who also chairs the 1922 Committee of Conservative backbenchers, recently led a roundtable at the Centre for Policy Studies to discuss the smoking ban proposals, which was sponsored by British American Tobacco.
Conservatives Accused of Breaking Electoral Law With Fake Sadiq Khan ‘Driving Charge Notices’
The Labour Party has written to the Director of Public Prosecutions demanding an investigation into the Conservative Party, after they sent out fake “Driving Charge Notices” to Londoners, wrongly claiming that Sadiq Khan intends to impose “pay per mile” driving charge, and demanding they hand over their data in order to avoid a penalty.
Proposals for pay-per-mile road charging have been discussed in the past by City Hall, including by Khan’s Conservative predecessor Boris Johnson. Rishi Sunak was also reportedly a previous supporter of such plans.
However, Khan has repeatedly ruled out bringing in pay-per-mile charging over the past year, saying again last month that he had “categorically” ruled out any such plans.
As Byline Times reported last week, the leaflets are designed to look like penalty charges, and warn recipients that “if you’re not prepared to pay then scan the QR code below.”
There is no mention of the Conservative Party on the leaflets, aside from a small print reference on the reverse of the leaflets, crediting them to CCHQ - the abbreviated name of the party’s headquarters.
Voters scanning the code with their phones are taken to a linked website requesting they hand over their details in order to fill out a “petition” against Khan’s “plans”.
Khan’s campaign say the leaflets are a breach of the Representation of the People’s Act.
Under the Act campaigns can be guilty of trying to exert “undue influence” on voters if they seek to win votes by “causing or threatening to cause financial loss to a person”.
Labour MP Karen Buck, who is chair of Khan’s campaign, said the leaflets were “legally questionable”.
“We’re now seeing tactics being used by the Tories which rival even those used in their disgraced 2016 Mayoral campaign” Buck said in a statement.
“The Tories are scaremongering people who are already worried about their bills thanks to the catastrophic cost-of-living crisis they created. These tactics are legally questionable, and certainly mark another low in this desperate Tory campaign characterised by dirty tactics and lies.”
In their letter to the DPP, the party states that "it is apparent that Ms Hall, in falsely implying that Mr Khan plans to introduce a “pay per mile” scheme, is suggesting that by voting for Mr Khan, electors may be caused financial loss as a result. This is a clear attempt to induce persons not to vote (or not to vote for Mr Khan) on the basis of that prospective financial loss, which therefore engages the Section 114A offence, with reference to subsection 4 (d)."
The Conservatives have also faced questions over their use of voter data, with regards to the leaflets.
A spokesperson for the Information Commissioners’ Office told this paper last week that they were considering complaints made about the leaflets.
“We are aware of issues raised in relation to campaign leaflets and are considering those concerns", they said.
“If a candidate or party asks you to complete a survey or petition, they should be clear how that data will be used in future.
“In many cases, it won’t be appropriate for the party or candidate to then repurpose that information for political campaigning.”
A spokesperson for Susan Hall’s campaign was contacted for comment.