A metro-mayor blocked from standing for Labour after appearing on a platform with filmmaker Ken Loach has accused the party of double standards over anti-Semitism. 

Jamie Driscoll, the North of Tyne mayor, quit the party last year after being barred from the Labour shortlist for the new larger North East Combined Authority. The party said it followed him refusing to condemn remarks from Loach that appeared to cast doubt on the Holocaust (Loach later clarified he believed the Holocaust was beyond any doubt). Driscoll, a former engineer, is now building a fierce campaign for the North East mayoralty as an independent. 

Now Driscoll has accused the party’s decisions on suspensions of being driven by factionalism and ideology - rather than real concerns over racism.

The comments came amid the party’s delay in suspending the party’s Rochdale by-election candidate Azhar Ali. Ali was caught on tape appearing to endorse an anti-Israel conspiracy theory, and claiming "people in the media from certain Jewish quarters" were condemning suspended Labour MP Andy McDonald. 

Jamie Driscoll told Byline Times: “Labour was trying to get me out long before I spoke to Ken Loach. I've got the emails [to prove it]. I’d been asking for data to contact members, which is my right as mayor. For years and years, Labour HQ said ‘the system can’t do that for mayors.’ Andy Burnham said: Yeah, it can. 

“Then I got this email from [HQ] that said, you can have the data, but only if you promise you won't run as North East mayor. So there you go. It was always going to happen.” 

Later in 2023 he spoke to filmmaker Loach “at a film festival about a film he’d made in my region. And [Labour HQ] said ‘you can't do that’. This is the bloke the Pope invited to the Sistine Chapel because of his work, making films campaigning for social justice.”

Labour subsequently barred him from the shortlist to be the party’s candidate for the new North East Combined Authority, which takes in Northumbria and County Durham as well as Newcastle and its surroundings. 

Driscoll added his concern that New Labour grandee Peter Mandelson appeared to be continuing to advise Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer - “despite staying over and being close friends with Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted child sex trafficker….That goes unnoticed.” (Lord Mandelson has said he ‘very much regrets’ their association and no illegality is alleged on his party). 

Labour MP Kate Osamor was also recently suspended after a comment on Holocaust Memorial Day suggesting Israel was engaged in genocide in Gaza. 

“[Osamor] said we shouldn't have genocide in Gaza, which is what the ICJ the International Court of Justice is saying,” Driscoll claimed. Osamor is on the left of the party. 

He accused Labour HQ of wanting to “destroy the labour movement's influence on the Labour Party. They want to make it a parliamentary party only. They're packing it with their loyal supporters. And they want to make sure that there is no democratic route through. 

“The NEC is using their powers in selections to say, “No, you can't be our candidate in future because you're not one of our group.” I was part of that, and that was it.”

He believes he was blocked from selection because he has “shown that this works” - this being radical Labour policies. Driscoll plans to reverse full bus privatisation in the North East, and implement free travel for under 18s. 

The independent mayor claims quiet support from Labour backers in the region: “More people in the Labour Party are going to vote for me rather than the Labour candidate” he says. 

“There’s a big list of anonymous donations on my [election] crowdfunder. Why do you think they're anonymous? They’re Labour. Half the Labour party refused to nominate [their candidate] in the North East,” the 53-year-old adds. 

He has also made a name for himself by committing to claim nothing in personal expenses and maintaining council tax levels at the same rate, policies he believes endear him to Conservative and Reform voters.

He also claims credit for negotiating the £6.1bn devolution deal for the North East from Levelling Up secretary Michael Gove. 

While Driscoll believes Keir Starmer “won’t last long”, he appears content with his independent status, and done with party politics. 

Driscoll spoke to Byline Times on Tuesday as he received the backing of youth climate movement Green New Deal Rising - and he appeared bullish about his political prospects this May. After his decision to run as an independent, he received around £150,000 in crowdfunded donations for his campaign - meaning he can put up a major campaign against the big parties.

It is this that he pins his very support to: a widespread dissatisfaction with traditional party politics. That view will no doubt have gained some additional traction amid Labour’s latest debacle. 

“Nobody turns out for the Labour Party anymore. You just look at the campaign photos to get like four or five people. It's the candidate and councillors who were whipped to be there, and a paid organiser and that's it. I turn up somewhere and 50 people just appear, and we actually run out of leaflets before we run out of people. 

“A lot of them are secret Labour members. There’s a Labour councillor who said ‘we’ve ordered the leaflets from the official Labour candidate, and they're going straight in the bin’”. 

He hints that even one or two North East Labour MPs have confessed to planning to voting for him - which Byline Times cannot verify. 

Nonetheless, the campaign does appear to have considerable traction. “It's huge. It doesn't matter what your politics are. People really don't like unfairness. A small stone can become an avalanche very quickly.”

Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com

A local newspaper editor has hit out at a Conservative parliamentary candidate for putting out a leaflet that wrongly implied the paper had endorsed his campaign.

Yousef Dahmash, the Conservative candidate for Rugby and Bulkington in the upcoming general election, used a quote from the Rugby Advertiser in party material, which editor Phil Hibble says gave the impression it was an endorsement.

This quote stemmed from an article about Dahmash's nomination as the Conservative choice for the parliamentary seat, taking over from the retiring MP Mark Pawsey, local press title Hold the Front Page reported. 

Hibble hit out in a comment piece on the title’s site, stating: “A political line has been crossed - and we are angry. Many of you would have seen that a leaflet from the Conservative's Yousef Dahmash that seems to have an 'endorsement' from us, The Rugby Advertiser. We are politically neutral and would never endorse a candidate. We will take action so this will never happen again.”

Photo: Local Conservative leaflet via Rugby Advertiser

The paper has declared a ban on publishing any Conservative press releases until the issue is addressed.

Editor Hibble wrote: “The good folk of the town will be wondering ‘Has our local newspaper suddenly abandoned their position of political neutrality?’ Let us assure you – no, we haven’t. And we are angry. The ‘endorsement’ came in the shape of a ‘quote’, which read: “Someone whose Rugby credentials are not in doubt….”. It then went on to list Yousef’s credentials and attributed it to the Rugby Advertiser.

“Not only did the Tories fail to notify us about using our name on their literature, but they used the quote out of context.”

The original article - ‘Rugby Tories play it safe with candidate for next election’ - included the line Cllr Dahmash used, but the full paragraph read: “After taking flak for selecting Lisa Parker to stand again for the borough council in May on the controversial basis that an allotment in Bilton was reasonable grounds for someone who lives in Northamptonshire to represent Rugby residents – and though external candidates are allowed in the parliamentary field – the association has gone for someone whose Rugby credentials are not in doubt.'”

Hibble added: “Using a line out of context as an endorsement on political literature is, at best, morally questionable. But at worst, it is damaging to our reputation as a trusted source for local news. And that has consequences for local democracy.

“We have asked the Tories to make a public statement about this and we will not publish any of their press material in the editorial space until the matter is resolved. Using our name as an endorsement for a candidate is never acceptable and deeply unfair to the people of Rugby.” 

A Labour source told Byline Times: “People trust their local paper to give fair and balanced views of local and national politics, but the Tories want to erode that trust with silly tricks that undermine good journalism.

"Sunak promised ‘integrity, accountability and professionalism at every level’. Instead we’ve got impersonation, ambiguity and poppycock.”

Hibble claimed in his piece that Cllr Dahmash had defended the pamphlet in a phone conversation.

UPDATE: Cllr Dahmash told Byline Times: "As you correctly identify...a quote was used from a Rugby Advertiser article in a recent leaflet. It was not intended to be an endorsement and no member of the public locally has raised this misinterpretation with me or with Rugby Conservative Association."

He added: "We believe that anyone who has read the leaflet, or will read it in the future, will be able to determine it is used as a quote. We do not believe that it meets the definition of an endorsement. 

"The quote contains factual information reported by the Rugby Advertiser. We did not include the quote in an effort to suggest I was preferred as a candidate by the newspaper, but to draw attention to what the Rugby Advertiser had itself reported and printed in the public domain."

We have removed a line from a Labour source which suggested Cllr Damash had 'made up' the quotes. This was incorrect and we're happy to amend.  

Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com

The Lords have issued a rebuke to the Government over its plans to impose a new strategy for the previously-independent elections watchdog. 

Peers accused Ministers of politicising the UK’s independent elections watchdog, after Conservative MPs pushed through a Government-written strategy for the Electoral Commission for the first time in its history last Wednesday. 

Last night, Lords passed a “motion to regret” the decision, a non-binding snub from the second chamber that comes amid fears that the election regulator had been commandeered by the politicians it oversees. 

For example, the new Government-written strategy for the Commission mentions “fraud” eleven times, but “donations” (e.g. to political parties) just twice. It also contains no mentions of AI or misinformation, issues which are likely to pose a serious threat to this year’s elections’ integrity. 

The Electoral Commission had itself briefed peers and MPs that the changes would be detrimental to the watchdog’s independence and public trust in elections. 

An EC briefing ahead of the vote made clear that “the introduction of a mechanism such as a strategy and policy statement – by which a government can guide an electoral commission’s work –  is inconsistent with the independent role of an electoral commission”. 

The elections body has the power to issue fines over election spending and donations failings by the Governing party that now sets its remit. The briefing stated that the new Government-written strategy statement “will enable actual or perceived guidance of the Commission’s decision-making by future UK Governments.”  

“The Commission’s research suggests that public confidence has already been  damaged. It shows a significant decline in public perceptions of the Commission’s  independence since the introduction of proposals for a Statement.” 

And in an apparent plea to a potential Labour Government, the group added: “The repeal of the power for [the] Government to designate a Statement would improve confidence and trust in our electoral system. It would uphold the principle that an  electoral commission remains independent from governments.”

Labour’s Cat Smith MP told the Commons last week the changes were “straight out of a Republican party playbook, politicising the Electoral Commission.”

Concerned Consensus

Both the Commons Levelling Up Committee and Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission have previously pointed out that a Government policy statement for the EC was unnecessary. 

The Levelling Up Committee said “no evidence has been provided justifying it”, while both Committees also  expressed concerns about the impact the Statement would have on the  Commission’s independence and effectiveness, the EC noted in its briefing. 

Damningly, the Levelling Up Committee found that the Government’s new EC strategy assumes that “Government priorities must automatically also be Commission priorities” and “for the most part  reads as though the Commission were an arm of Government”. 

Ministers had defended themselves by noting that the Government sets the strategy for a number of regulators, from Ofwat to Ofgem and Ofsted. 

But Lib Dem peer Chris Rennard, who has been leading much of the charge against the charges, told the chamber last night the EC was fundamentally different.

 “The Electoral Commission is not like other regulators such as those for the utility industries. Its role includes advising on the framing of election laws; and it helps to police them. It is not appropriate, therefore, for the party in power to set the Commission’s policy and strategy. 

“Putting the governing party in charge of this is like letting GB News set the strategy and policy for Ofcom, Southern Water to set it for Ofwat, or Eton to set it for Ofsted,” he said.

Lord Rennard told Byline Times: “The Electoral Commission was set up with all party agreement in 2000 to act as an independent watchdog regulating issues such as party finance and advising on issues such as potential changes to election laws.

“We have had five Governments since then which accepted this principle, this is the first one which has sought to control the strategy and policy of an otherwise independent body.”  

The Lib Dem peer had attempted to launch a 'fatal motion' against the changes in the Lords, but Labour did not get behind the plan, likely over fears that it would encourage Conservatives to vote down Labour legislation in the Lords under a Labour Government. 

Lord Rennard added that making the Commission subject to a strategy “drawn up by Michael Gove” raises the question of what the Government fears from an independent regulator. 

“Recent Government changes to election law such as raising party spending limits by 80% which will only help the Conservative Party; introducing very restricted forms of photo ID at polling to suppress the vote of those least likely to vote Conservative; and deliberately failing to take measures to register more of the eight million people legally entitled to vote but not on the electoral rolls – [they] all show a contempt for democracy and the principle of fair play in elections,” Lord Rennard said.   

But Levelling Up minister in the Lords Baroness Penn told the chamber: “The Government absolutely agree[s] about the importance of the independence of the Electoral Commission, but we also think it important for all bodies to be accountable. 

“The measures in the statement are a way for the Electoral Commission to be held to account by Parliament, and we think that is a reasonable measure to take.” 

She noted, perhaps to the detriment of her argument about maintaining independence,  that “the statement sets out the Government’s priorities in areas that touch on matters such as voter ID, where the Government continue[s] to be of the view that it is essential that we stamp out the potential for voter fraud.” 

Democracy groups and the EC itself have been sharply critical of voter ID and its implementation, given the strictly-limited types of photo ID permitted and the fact that over 14,000 voters were denied a vote in England’s 2023 local elections alone – elections that took place on a far smaller scale than a General Election. 

Labour’s Lord Khan of Burnley motion to regret the change stated: “This House regrets that the draft Strategy and Policy Statement has been laid, despite significant concerns raised by the Speaker’s Committee, the Electoral Commission, and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee, during the statutory consultation process, and the finding by the Speaker’s Committee that the statement as drafted is “not fit for purpose and inconsistent with the Commission’s role as an independent regulator””. 

It passed by 175 votes to 159, with no Conservative peers rebelling.

“Do we have corruption? Yes, we do. This is an example of that,” Labour's Dawn Butler MP said in a previous debate on the issue.  

UPDATE: An Electoral Commission spokesperson told Byline Times after the Lords vote:  “It remains the Electoral Commission’s view that a strategy and policy statement – by which the Government seeks to guide our work – is inconsistent with our independent role. The Commission’s Board has expressed its concern and key committees of Parliament have highlighted both the importance of maintaining the Commission’s independence and the risks posed by such a statement.

“Now that the statement has been passed by the UK Parliament, we will meet our legal duty to have regard to it. We will continue to act independently and impartially to help maintain public confidence in elections and political finance regulation.”

Commons Vote

In the Commons' vote on the new EC strategy last week, Labour's shadow democracy minister, Florence Eshalomi MP, accused the government of railroading the changes through Parliament.

Former constitution minister, Tory Chloe Smith noted that 2024 is a significant year for elections - emphasising the role of AI and the necessity for the Electoral Commission to address potential misinformation and election integrity.

However, the Government’s strategy includes zero mentions of artificial intelligence, deepfakes or misinformation – issues which could have a significant impact on this year’s votes. 

In closing, Minister Hoare reaffirmed the Commission's independence as "absolutely sacrosanct”. But in words that may come back to bite him, he added the Government strategy was  “iterative and organic – and of course, it can be refreshed to deal with issues as they arise…I use the word ‘as’ not ‘if’”.

It was a recognition that the Conservatives – and future Governments - will be at liberty to change the Electoral Commission's strategy however and whenever they wish. 

In the Commons last week, the new EC strategy passed on party lines by 273 votes to the opposition’s 190. There were no Conservative rebels. 

Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com

It’s a dangerous thought: that the UK’s role as one of Ukraine’s strongest backers could change in the next 12 months.

But it’s one that’s sinking in, even in the wake of the new UK-Ukraine security deal signed in Kyiv just a few weeks ago.

Though the UK public have been strongly supportive of Ukraine since February 2022, as one of Britain’s top pollsters warned on the one year anniversary of the Russian invasion, the public’s “support [...] is not completely limitless”.

In this heady election year for Europe, then, there are some initial signs that the UK could also be on trend for “Ukraine fatigue” as it approaches elections in 2024 or early 2025 – and Reform UK, a right-wing populist party, could be the vessel that carries it.

Fiercely anti-establishment, Reform UK is a vote sink for people who can no longer stand the Conservatives or Labour. They are now widely reported to be drawing away votes and support from the Conservatives, though there are different scenarios for how many seats they could eventually take in the UK parliament.

According to the BBC’s integrated polling tracker, the Conservatives are polling around 24%, with the Labour Party around 40-50%, and at around 10%, Reform UK. (As evidence of the desperation, look at this open letter to Rishi Sunak from a leading Conservative opinion-maker.) Equally, it’s worth taking these numbers with a pinch of salt: the opinion polls could be inflated, or politically influenced; telephone polling by Ipsos suggests that the Reform vote is around 4% currently.

But if there is a Reform party surge at the UK elections this year, it could be bad news for Ukraine. While Reform UK’s policy platform focuses on cutting back on “excess” – the cost of living crisis in the UK, government overreach, immigration or a “bloated” public sector – it does not currently have a foreign policy beyond calling for cuts to foreign aid. When asked by Byline Times about Ukraine, Reform UK said that it does not have a party position on the issue.

Evidence of how this could play out on the voter side was apparent in the public reaction to Reform UK chairman Richard Tice’s recent trip to Ukraine to deliver pick-up trucks and other aid. While Tice praised Ukraine’s resistance, arguing that if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, the Russian president would make further threats against Europe, Reform UK followers berated Tice online.

They claimed Tice’s trip was evidence of him “putting Ukraine first” over the UK and couched their critique in contrast to the mainstream media’s supportive portrayal of Ukraine’s resistance against Russia.

From their perspective, Tice was “playing along” with the UK establishment, which has spent billions in tax-payer funds on Ukraine’s fight against Russia. More broadly, stopping UK support is a common refrain in the comments when presenters address Ukraine on right-wing YouTube. As one prospective Reform parliamentary candidate explained the Tice trip on Twitter: “ReformUK supports peace in Ukraine and denounces the government for sending BILLIONS of pounds worth of weapons to Ukraine. Tice isn't handing out AKs, calm down.”

Of course, it remains unclear how far public support for withdrawing aid to Ukraine goes. Judging by the online reaction, “Ukraine” triggers a broader anti-establishment narrative in the potential Reform UK segment, but it is not a driving concern.

Still, Reform UK voters may be divided on supporting Ukraine along the twin poles of conservatism (“we must do more” and “we have to focus on ourselves”). On the one hand you have Tice, Reform’s leader, who warns of the danger Russia poses to Europe and calls to support Ukraine, and on the other, both Nigel Farage, Reform UK’s honorary president, and Laurence Fox, another major public face for this segment, argue that NATO expansion provoked Putin into the invasion. As Fox asked after Tice’s trip to Ukraine: “Shouldn’t British politicians deal with British problems?”

In the worst-case scenario – and there is still time for this to change – we are potentially looking at Reform landing a group of MPs in parliament who either subscribe to the view that the UK should withdraw financial and military support from Ukraine, or believe their voters do.

This means that the next UK Government may need to spend much more time explaining to the British public why backing Ukraine’s resistance against Russia is the right thing to do. The UK may have left the EU, but our right-wing populist moment is well in line with Europe.