elections
‘Straight Out of the Republican Playbook’: Conservatives Impose New Strategy on Elections Watchdog in Crucial Election Year
Ministers have been accused of politicising the UK’s independent elections watchdog, as Conservative MPs pushed through a Government-written strategy for the Electoral Commission for the first time in its history.
This afternoon the Government used its majority to pass a new ‘Strategy and Policy statement’ meant to guide the work and priorities of the UK elections body.
An example of the shift in emphasis might be seen in the fact the new Government-written strategy mentions “fraud” eleven times, but “donations” (e.g. to political parties) just twice. The Electoral Commission’s primary enforcement powers are over breaches of donations rules - for example if a party wrongly accepts a donation from a foreign source.
Critics of the Government’s “power grab” point out that voter fraud - for example, through the kind of impersonation mandatory photo ID is meant to prevent - is a vanishingly rare occurrence in the UK. Instead, issues surrounding electoral malpractice by candidates and parties, and breaches of political donations rules are more common.
Local Government minister Simon Hoare opened the Commons debate by downplaying concerns about the government's new strategy for the Electoral Commission, insisting it does not undermine the Commission's independence.
He claimed the new policy statement, laid before the House on 14th December, is an “advisory” document, without introducing new governmental powers or reporting duties for the Commission.
But Labour MP Clive Betts, the chair of the Commons constitutional affairs committee , expressed his “disbelief” at the claims that the new strategy would not significantly impact the EC’s work - asking what the point of the new strategy was if the Commission isn't required to act on it.
Former Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell, who sits on the Speaker’s Committee which oversees the Commission, raised concerns about the repeated use of the word "should" in the Government document. “If the Commission then ignores that word ‘should’ - what then happens? There’s an implied threat around a ‘should’,” McDonnell told the Commons.
In comments unlikely to settle nerves, minister Hoare reiterated that the new strategy is not a "revolutionary power grab" but an “augmentation”. He described it as “benign”, aiming to support, not direct, the Commission.
But several MPs noted that future governments may not be so “benign” in their use of these new Government powers over the watchdog.
Labour backbencher Cat Smith MP, who sits on the Speaker’s Committee, said: “Voters rely on the EC to safeguard democracy itself - not to allow one party to set all the rules.
“While one party might be in government today, there will have to be an election. Another party could write the next statement…
“The structures we make should be able to withstand changes of party. This structure comes straight out of a Republican party playbook, politicising the Electoral Commission.”
Fellow Labour left-winger Dawn Butler labelled the strategy a hangover from Boris Johnson's tenure, aimed at undermining the Commission's independence when it ruled against Conservative party or Brexiteer figures.
Butler noted that the EC itself wrote to MPs this week stressing that the independence of the body is crucial to maintaining confidence in the democratic system. “If they’re saying that, and the Speaker’s Committee is [then the changes] don’t make any sense.
“This is about fulfilling the Government’s priorities. By definition that means it can’t be independent. If a foreign Government was wielding this much power over its elections, there would be calls to send in independent advisers to ensure their elections were being held democratically.
“Do we have corruption? Yes, we do. This is an example of that,” Butler added.
Clive Betts slammed the new strategy for potentially skewing the Commission's priorities - focusing on registering overseas voters - while neglecting the nine million people missing from the electoral register in the UK.
The Scottish National Party’s Patrick Grady was outspoken in branding the move politically motivated in anticipation of difficult elections for the Conservatives this year.
Labour's shadow democracy minister, Florence Eshalomi MP, accused the government of railroading the statement 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 not one mention 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.
The new EC strategy passed on party lines by 273 votes to the opposition’s 190. There were no Conservative rebels.
Lib Dem peer Lord Chris Rennard attempted to launch a 'fatal motion' against the changes in the Lords, but Labour did not get behind the plan. Peers will vote on a non-binding 'motion of regret' over the plans on Tuesday.
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
Sunak Focuses on Tiny-Chance of ‘Extinction by Robots’ While Elections Remain Wide-Open to AI Deepfakes and Disinformation — Report
The Government risks leaving UK elections wide open to artificial intelligence-generated misinformation as it focuses on longer-term concerns over robots wiping out humanity, a new report has suggested.
Following the PM’s gathering of AI and tech bosses at Bletchley Park in November - which led to a voluntary agreement on sharing AI models with regulators - the report argues: “There is a risk that these actions focus so much on the potential existential risks of AI that they miss the more immediate risks that are coming down the track on election integrity in the 2024 bumper year of elections.”
This year sees pivotal elections in the UK, India, the European Union, the US and more - and experts fear that hostile actors will seek to sow mistrust, apathy and division through the abuse of new generative AI tools and the creation of embarrassing ‘deepfakes’ of politicians to swing elections.
During the last Labour Party conference, deepfake audio clips of Labour leader Keir Starmer were circulated on social media which purported to show him verbally abusing party staffers and criticising the city of Liverpool where the conference was being held.
Around the same time, elections in Slovakia were rocked when a fake audio recording was created of Michal Simecka, the leader of the Progressive Slovakia Party, discussing how to “rig” the general election. It was credited with contributing to her surprise loss just days later.
Argentina’s November 2023 election was dubbed by some the “first AI election” in which both candidates used AI extensively to generate images of their opponent, the think tank Demos notes.
The warning comes in a paper for the policy group, Generating Democracy: AI and the Coming Revolution in Political Communications, by Alison Dawson and James Ball.
The report calls for UK parties to jointly commit to not produce or share content they believe is misleading, AI-generated material, such as faked video or audio or doctored images in this crucial election year.
It’s also likely that AI tools will be used for “micro-targeting” certain groups of voters in the upcoming election - where personal data is analysed to “identify and tailor messages towards the interests of a particular audience”. Again, this could be done at unprecedented speed and scale using AI tools.
“If you had a psychological profile of each voter to target them individually, you can expedite this with AI,” Dr Keegan McBride, Departmental Research Lecturer in AI, Government, and Policy at the Oxford Internet Institute told the report’s authors.
Another public relations expert told the authors the use of AI in the communications industry is “about to explode”.
Polling conducted by YouGov on behalf of Cavendish for the study found that the overwhelming majority (80%) of MPs in the UK say they have never used AI in their work.
A tiny proportion - 3% - said that they had used it for social media posts while a further 3% said they used it for campaign materials such as leaflets. Demographic surveys suggest it is likely that their younger staffers are however using tools like ChatGPT in their work.
During a recent House of Commons debate on AI, MP Matt Warman claimed that other MPs have “confessed” to him that they have used AI to write their speeches.
However, the report argues that many content producers are operating in grey areas where there are no set rules but norms are being established.
And where organisations have attempted to be transparent in their use of AI tools, it has sometimes cost them. Human rights group Amnesty International used AI generated photos depicting protests in Colombia.
“They said this was to protect protesters from retribution and included text saying the images were AI-generated. [But] they faced backlash for the use of these images and removed them from social media, suggesting that even when organisations use such images with transparency and good intentions they can still face criticism,” the authors write.
It suggests that without regulation or firm agreement from political communicators, the reputational cost of revealing that content was produced by artificial intelligence might be too high.
And while most mainstream AI tools such as ChatGPT and Midjourney have some safeguards protecting against real public figures’ images or videos being significantly altered to create fake footage or stills of them in compromising situations, there are many unregulated tools online.
In a 2023 article for the tech magazine Wired, Professor Kate Starbird wrote that communicators - including those in politics - can use generative AI to “write one article and tailor it to 12 different audiences. It takes five minutes for each one of them.” This may be an understatement given the November launch of new “Turbo” GPT models.
The Demos report notes that generative AI could be used to create fake content “quickly and at scale”.
There is almost no legal regulation on generative AI, as the major planks of tech legislation was drafted in the 2000s, and the Government’s flagship Online Safety Bill has yet to come into effect. The Online Safety Act will eventually force tech firms to enforce their own safety standards. It is not clear how this applies to online tools that lack safeguards altogether.
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
Q and A with Jonathan White on In the Long Run: The Future as a Political Idea
We speak to Jonathan White about his new book, In the Long Run: The Future as a Political Idea, which investigates how changing political conceptions of the future have impacted societies from the birth of democracy to the present.
On Tuesday 30 January 2024 LSE staff, students, alumni and prospective students can attend a research showcase where Jonathan White will discuss the book.
In the Long Run: The Future as a Political Idea. Jonathan White. Profile Books. 2024.
Find this book: 
Q: What is the value of examining democracy in terms of its orientation towards, or relationship to, the future?
My book tries to show how beliefs about the future shape expectations of who should hold power, how it should be exercised, and to what ends. The emergence of modern democracy in Europe coincided with new ways of thinking about time. In the 18th and 19th centuries, emerging ideas of a future that could be different from the present and susceptible to influence helped to spur mass political participation. Movements of the left cast the future as the place of ideals, and “isms” such as socialism and liberalism provided the basis on which strangers could find common cause. Conversely, authoritarians have used the future differently to pacify the public and keep power out of its hands. Projecting democracy, prosperity and justice into the future is one way to seek acceptance of their absence in the present.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, emerging ideas of a future that could be different from the present and susceptible to influence helped to spur mass political participation.
Q: Why is an emphasis on continuation beyond the present essential to the operation of democracy?
Modern democracy is representative democracy, and that gives the future particular significance. Why should people accept the results of elections that go against them? “Losers’ consent” is generally said to rest on the notion that victories and defeats are temporary – there will always be another chance to contest power. The expected future acts as a resource for the acceptance of adversaries and of mediating institutions and procedures. One of today’s challenges is that this sense of continuation into the future is increasingly questioned. Problems of climate change, inequality, geopolitics and social change are widely viewed as so urgent and serious that they remove any scope for error – waiting for the “next time” is not enough. Every political battle starts to feel like the final battle, to be won at all costs. This year’s US presidential election will be fought in these terms and will make clear the stresses it puts on democracy.
One of today’s challenges is that this sense of continuation into the future is increasingly questioned. Problems of climate change, inequality, geopolitics and social change are widely viewed as so urgent and serious that they remove any scope for error
Q: You credit liberal economic thinkers like Adam Smith with “pushing back the temporal horizon”. How did their ideas around the free market treat the future?
In the early Enlightenment, defenders of free trade and commerce tended to emphasise the dividends that could be expected in the short term – peace and stability, for example, and access to goods. But the legitimacy of the market order would be hard to secure if it rested only on immediate benefits. What if conditions were harsh, or wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few? Pioneers of liberal economic thought such as Smith started to promote a longer perspective, allowing them to cite benefits that would need time to materialise, such as advances in efficiency, productivity and innovation. The future could also be invoked to indicate where present-day injustices would be ironed out. What we now know as “trickle-down” economics, in which returns for the rich are embraced on the idea that they will percolate down to the many, entails pointing to the future to defend the inequalities of the present. By invoking an extended timeframe, one can seek to rationalise a system that otherwise looks dysfunctional.
Pioneers of liberal economic thought such as Smith started to promote a longer perspective, allowing them to cite benefits that would need time to materialise, such as advances in efficiency, productivity and innovation.
Q: You cite the 20th-century ascendance of technocracy, of “ideas of the future as an object of calculation, best placed in the hands of experts”. How has this impacted democratic agency?
One way to think about the future is in terms of probabilities – what outcomes are most likely and how they can be prepared for. You find this outlook in business, and in government – especially in its more technocratic forms. It brings certain things with it. A focus on prediction and problem-solving often means focusing on a relatively near horizon – a few years, months, weeks or less – as where the future can be gauged with greatest certainty. And that in turn tends to go with a consciously pragmatic form of politics, less interested in the longer timescales needed for far-reaching change. In terms of the democratic implications, a focus on probabilities tends to elevate the role of experts – economists, for example – as those able to harness particular methods of projection such as statistics. If you turn the future into an object of calculation, it tends to favour elite modes of rule.
An emphasis on prediction is also something that has shaped how politics is covered in the media. Consider the use of opinion polls to narrate change – increasingly prominent from the 1930s onwards – which encourage a spectator’s perspective. Or consider a style of reporting quite common today, whereby a journalist talks about “what I’m hearing in Washington / Westminster / Brussels”. Its focus is on garnering clues about who seems likely to do what, and what they think others will do. The accent is less on the analysis of how things could be, or should be, or indeed currently are, and more on where they seem to be heading. It is news as managers or investors might want it – and politically that often amounts to an uncritical perspective.
Q: You discuss how desires to calculate the future through military forecasting took hold during the Cold War. What are the legacies of this in governmental politics today?
One of the main functions of military forecasting during the Cold War was to second-guess the actions of enemy states – where their weaknesses lay, where they might attack, and so on. That was true in both the West and the East. But forecasting was also applied to the control of populations at home, and not just with an eye to foreign policy. Fairly early on, national security experts started to get involved in public policy and urban planning – think of initiatives such as the “war on crime” launched by US President Lyndon Johnson in 1965. The outlook of the military forecaster began to transfer from the realm of geopolitics to public policy, counterinsurgency and the management of domestic protest, bringing methods of secrecy with it. Today’s forms of surveillance governance are the descendants of these forecasting techniques. And so too are conspiracy theories, which are often based on the idea that some have more knowledge of the future than they let on. Theories of 9/11 that suggest the US government saw the attack coming and deliberately let it happen, or even assisted it, are emblematic.
Q: Why is reducing social and economic inequality important to enable future-oriented political engagement from as many people as possible?
Democratic participation requires the capacity to see the present from the perspective of an imagined better future. But that presupposes the time and capacity for reflection. Those living in insecure conditions typically lack the resources and inclination to turn their eyes to the future. In exhausting jobs, the focus tends to be on getting through the day (or night): the present dominates the future. In precarious jobs or unemployment, people lack control of their lives: the future can look too unpredictable to bother with. Political engagement also depends on a sense that the problems encountered are shared with others. A workplace centred on short-term contracts on the contrary presents individuals with a constantly changing cast of peers. Other things can also undercut a sense of shared fate – personal debt, for instance, or algorithmic forms of scoring (eg, in insurance) that focus on the particularities of individual lives.
In exhausting jobs, the focus tends to be on getting through the day (or the night): the present dominates the future.
This is the sense in which the social and economic changes of the last few decades have fostered the privatisation of the future. The choices of political organisations like parties and movements are crucial in this context. They can either challenge these tendencies, developing that critical perspective on the present and a sense of shared fate – think eg, of a movement like the Debt Collective. Or they can reproduce these tendencies – eg, by treating voters as individuals who want only to maximise their own interests.
Q: What effects can crises have on how governments and citizens conceptualise and act on the future? Are current democratic political systems capable of addressing the climate crisis, the great future-oriented challenge of our time?
Crises tend to engender a sense of scarce time, and in the contemporary state that tends to bring a managerial approach to the fore. Emergencies are governed as one more problem of calculation, with a focus on concrete outcomes that can be traced from the present. The risk is that questions of justice and structural change get marginalised, as considerations that distract from the immediacy of the situation and open too many issues. Emergency government tends to prioritise short-term goals over long-term, and those which are concrete and quantifiable over those which are not.
Climate change too tends to be turned into a problem of calculation in policymaking circles. One sees it with the targets and deadlines invoked. By making net zero carbon emissions an overriding objective, authorities can marginalise considerations no less relevant to human wellbeing and environmental protection – biodiversity, global health and economic equality, for example. This is why some climate scholars see such methods as counterproductive. By emphasising a particular set of variables within a delimited timeframe, targets and deadlines get us thinking more about the near future, crowded with specificities, and less about the further horizon and the more general, incalculable goals that belong to it.
Taking the future seriously meant not hemming oneself in with false precision but setting out clear principles and organising in their pursuit.
The pitfalls of exactitude are something I try to highlight in the book. Not only is it hard to make predictions in a volatile world, but a focus on quantified targets can be counterproductive, since the facts at any moment can be bleak. As the socialists of the late 19th century understood, if the future was to be about radical change pursued over the long term, one could not afford to get lost in the details of the moment. Taking the future seriously meant not hemming oneself in with false precision but setting out clear principles and organising in their pursuit. I think this is a message that still applies. Climate change requires science and precision to grasp, but climate politics requires balancing this with a sense of uncertainty, open-endedness, and the possibility of radical change.
Note: This interview gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The interview was conducted by Anna D’Alton, Managing Editor of LSE Review of Books.
By-Election Frenzy: Kingswood Labour Candidate Damien Egan on Public Services in Freefall, Upping Sticks, and Starmer’s Purse Strings
Damien Egan wasn’t expecting to migrate South West for a few months yet. He was still Mayor of Lewisham when he saw the news: Kingswood Conservative MP Chris Skidmore had quit Parliament over the Government’s plans to ramp up oil and gas licences in the North Sea.
That has triggered an early, February by-election in the Kingswood constituency, the South Gloucestershire seat set to be abolished at the next election - in other words, later this year.
Egan, who grew up in Bristol but moved to Lewisham after graduating, had been directly-elected Mayor of the South London borough for nearly six years. Skidmore’s resignation came as a "complete surprise," he told me. “I had to resign immediately.”
Skidmore, for his part, made headlines not merely for his dramatic departure - but the fact it seemed to be one of the few resignations of this parliament that was on a point of principle.
It offered a contrast to the lobbying, lying and sleaze scandals of Owen Patterson, Chris Pincher, Boris Johnson, Peter Bone and others on the Government benches. (Egan confirms to me that he will not take a second job if elected - moonlighting has brought down several desperate parliamentarians recently).
The 41-year old had already been selected as a candidate for Bristol North East, which overlaps with the departing Kingswood seat.
Does Egan respect his departing opponent’s stance? "Yes, and there's been a lot of people who have commended him” - including Labour MPs. But the “cost of the taxpayer” does come up on the doorstep, Labour’s candidate said. “There are people who think: ‘you could have voted against things in Parliament. You didn't necessarily have to call a by-election right now.’"
But the campaign has now become a full-time job for Egan, and perhaps too for Sam Bromiley, the Conservative candidate who is also group leader on the formerly-Tory run South Gloucestershire Council.
Unsurprisingly, Labour is keen to ram home the rising cost of living - and the perceived breakdown of public services. Access to dentistry is a big deal in Bristol - far more so than London, Egan says.
“Everybody here is impacted by doctors and dentists appointments…There's no dentist in Bristol, who is accepting new NHS patients. In the whole of Bristol,” he says.
The dentist he used growing up in Kingswood now charges £20 pounds a month to stay on the books as an NHS patient, Egan claims. “You'll get a check up with that as well. But it's expensive. People are recognising that they're not just paying more tax but then they're still having to pay for the extras. And the extras here become: going to the dentist.”
On the first night of the campaign, it was snowing. He spoke to a woman and her 16-year-old son. They've still got an NHS dentist, but they can't get an appointment. “She's just medicating her son on pain relief tablets. It feels like Victorian times,” Egan adds.
GP appointments are similarly hard to come by, with the 8am phone line rush still cutting off people’s access to primary care. “I don't think it's a lot to ask for. Just go to the doctor, to go to the dentist. People just want the basic things sorted out.”
That feeling of slipping backwards as a country is pertinent. Egan says many of the women where he grew up are doing “exactly the same work that my mum would do” - shop work, caring, being dinner ladies and so on. “But they’ve got a lot less money.”
The feeling of decay, too: the high streets left to wither. “Kingswood High Street is the place that people go to…It [used to be] a proper town centre.”
There’s a “beautiful” historic clock tower on that drag. Last year it had its 100th anniversary. “The thing is, it's got weeds hanging out of it. We’ve lost a feeling of pride, and people are connecting that with the Conservatives having been in power for 14 years. You can't deny it,” he adds.
And yet, Labour offers feel thinner with each apparent rejection of spending commitments. The party says it is committed to tough fiscal rules, and there is talk of Sir Keir signing up to Conservative spending plans. The deprivation Egan sees around Kingswood will be hard to tackle without extra cash - and that doesn't seem to be forthcoming from Keir Starmer, does it?
“People understand it,” Egan counters. “Honestly, people have told me that they don't want Labour to be making lots of promises that they can't fulfil, and be reckless with the economy. People saw what happened with Liz Truss. Look what happened to mortgage rates.
“They want a government that is going to be cautious with the economy and focus more on how we grow the economy. And that actually seems to be going down better than saying ‘right we're going to increase taxes and fund X million in this, X million in that. People don't want to hear that.’”
Is saying “no” a message that can inspire hope? It seems each time Sir Keir opens his mouth there are accusations of a policy u-turn - including the apparent watering-down of the commitment to spend £28bn a year on green investment, amid a right-wing backlash. Do people have hope that Labour will change things for the better?
“I haven’t heard about u-turns, but people understand that as we get closer to the election, more detail will get spelt out. People are really looking at what's going to be in the manifesto," Egan tells me.
They’ll have to keep waiting past this by-election. In the meantime, his focus, he says, is on promoting growth - new, well-paid jobs and an industrial strategy for industry, and trying to get his hands on some Levelling Up funding for the area if elected.
February 15’s vote will be one of the first where those without photo ID will be turned away and denied a vote. Is Egan worried it will harm his support?
“We get the numbers on people who are turned away, but you never know how many people don't have an ID. I've spoken to older people who might not have a driver's licence or might not have had a passport for a long time.
You might have some younger ones that don’t drive in and might not have a passport yet.” He is asking voters awkward questions: “Where's your passport? Where’s your driving licence?”
Whatever happens with this by-election, or the General Election later this year, Egan appears to have ditched London for good. He is sticking around for the long haul, he says:”For me, this is a relocation. I’m closer to my family. My sister's got a two year old and an eight month old baby. My nan is 88. I’m going to be home.”
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
‘Sunak’s Election Date Guessing Game is Another Attempt at Distraction from his Government’s Incompetence’
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
A curious thing happened last week. Asked by journalists about the timing of the next general election, Rishi Sunak said: "My working assumption is we’ll have a general election in the second half of this year."
In some ways, the revelation was not a surprise.
The Prime Minister must call a poll at some point before the end of this year (and it must be held by the end of January 2025), and commentators had seemed evenly split about whether he would do so before the summer or after it.
Nor was this a spontaneous announcement from Sunak: Westminster insiders had known the news for some days beforehand.
And yet, it was intriguing in two specific ways.
Sunak’s language – "working assumption" – implied that it was somewhat beyond his control, when in fact he has an absolute prerogative to request the election from the King any time he chooses. And he actually kept the door open for a spring election even while appearing to reject it: a "working assumption" can, of course, be subject to change.
What is going on?
In terms of political guesswork, 2 May had been gathering momentum as a likely date. Shortly before the New Year, the Government announced that the budget would be held on 6 March, earlier than usual. The theory went that the Chancellor might announce a series of giveaways – a major cut or abolition of inheritance tax, say, coupled perhaps with a cut to income tax. The Prime Minister would then immediately proffer that for public endorsement before the plans had a chance to unravel or be exposed as ideologically flawed or economically undeliverable.
‘Brexit – Three Years On: The Lie So Etched on Britain’s Body Politic’
Jonathan Lis explores whether telling the truth about leaving the EU would take the entire establishment down too
Jonathan Lis
The 2 May date would also coincide with the local elections, and so (besides the convenience) also offer a crumb of advantage to the Conservatives: that the narrative of a drubbing at those local elections would not then pursue the Prime Minister for a further few months until the next public vote. In politics it is better to be presumed a massive vote-loser than to have it confirmed.
The alternative theory, now in the ascendant, runs that Sunak wishes to let tax cuts bed in, wait for the economy to improve, and perhaps see a reduction in the number of small boat crossings. Of course, none of this would be guaranteed. The public might have forgotten about the tax cuts (or been reminded about associated cuts to public services), and the economic situation could be worse. It also strengthens Labour’s charge that Sunak is ‘bottling’ an election, as Gordon Brown did to his cost in 2007.
Perhaps Sunak simply wants to stay in office for as long as possible. The date of 14 November is reportedly circulating in Westminster.
None of this is a good way to run a country.
Sunak’s ambiguity has not dampened speculation but fuelled it. Amid global turmoil and an ongoing cost of living crisis, this year’s focus will not be on the key issues facing ordinary people but on the timing of the election. The speculation will suck up the political oxygen for the next 11 months. It promises both to dominate and numb us.
That anaesthetisation is good for one person alone: the Prime Minister. While he runs down the clock to his (almost) inevitable ejection from office, he has the opportunity to keep the country guessing, continually drop fresh hints, and make use of all the ‘wiggle room’ that he can.
It offers him the perfect distraction from the incompetence of his Government. As Sunak’s authority and public approval crumbles around him, this is the one definitive bit of power remaining to him, and he seems determined to enjoy it.
This also requires journalists to engage in a task equally thankless, undignified and futile: to probe the inner workings of Sunak’s mind. We do not know what Sunak wants and we are not entirely sure that he does either.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
Does the Prime Minister actually enjoy his job? Does he want another five years of power, which if (by some miracle) he were to win it would almost certainly involve the slimmest of majorities and a return to the fractious chaos of the John Major years? Does he, as is widely suspected, in fact want to leave office and seek even greater wealth in the California tech sphere?
The problem is not that we don’t know, but that we have to ask these questions at all. This should not be about what the Prime Minister wants.
It is yet another absurdity of Britain’s patchwork democracy that its leader has the ability to call an election entirely at a moment of their choosing.
The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act of 2011, which removed that prerogative until its repeal in 2022, was (by common consent) flawed, but at least bestowed the fundamental power of calling elections onto Parliament rather than the Prime Minister. It would have been entirely possible to enact new legislation which forced a prime minister to secure the approval of the House of Commons before requesting a dissolution, but the Government rejected a Lords amendment to that effect, and Conservative MPs duly voted it down. As such, the UK’s uncodified constitution of gentlemen’s conventions continues unhindered.
In the end, perhaps, it doesn’t much matter when the election comes. Whether in May or November, the public will issue its judgement and the Conservatives will feel it. In the meantime, the Government will continue its paralysis – and inflict it on everyone else.
The Politics of Memory in the Italian Populist Radical Right – review
In The Politics of Memory in the Italian Populist Radical Right, Marianna Griffini examines Italy’s political landscape, following the roots of fascism through to their influence on contemporary politics. Skilfully dissecting nativism, immigration, colonialism and the profound impact of memory on Italian political identities, the book makes an important contribution to scholarship on political history and theory and memory studies, according to Georgios Samaras.
The Politics of Memory in the Italian Populist Radical Right: From Mare Nostrum to Mare Vostrum. Marianna Griffini. Routledge. 2023.
Find this book:
Marianna Griffini’s The Politics of Memory in the Italian Populist Radical Right stands as a thorough examination of Italy’s political landscape, weaving together historical threads and contemporary realities. The book provides a nuanced analysis that dissects the roots of Italian fascism and charts the trajectory of its influence on present-day politics, offering a solid exploration of the nation’s political memory.
Griffini sets the stage for an exploration of how collective memory shapes political ideologies
The eight chapters form a cohesive narrative that progressively deepens the understanding of Italy’s political milieu. Chapter One serves as a poignant introduction, capturing the current state of the Italian radical right and framing the central theme of memory. Griffini sets the stage for an exploration of how collective memory shapes political ideologies, a theme that reverberates throughout the subsequent chapters.
Chapter Two delves into the concept of nativism, contextualising it within both the broader European framework and the specific nuances of Italian politics. This nuanced exploration lays the foundation for comprehending the intricate dance between nativism, populism and the enduring echoes of Italy’s fascist past. Chapter Three, clearly outlines the research methodologies, establishing the scholarly background underpinning the entire work.
Chapter Four posits the emergence of the nation-state and examines the impact of otherisation, offering a lens to comprehend the dynamics of Italian politics. Otherisation, as a concept, illuminates how politicians endeavour to portray certain societal groups as different, often excluding them from the national identity. In this chapter, the analysis effectively traces, in a historiographical manner, the gradual development of this phenomenon over several decades, establishing a connection to fascist movements.
Otherisation, as a concept, illuminates how politicians endeavour to portray certain societal groups as different, often excluding them from the national identity.
The book takes a pivotal turn in Chapter Five, addressing the weighty topic of immigration and the multifaceted challenges it poses. This chapter serves as a bridge, connecting historical narratives with contemporary realities, offering a comprehensive understanding of the role immigration plays in shaping political discourse.
Chapter Six unfolds a detailed analysis of colonialism and its impact on attitudes toward immigration. Griffini’s exploration of colonial pasts and their connection to collective memory, as presented in Chapter Seven, adds a further layer of historical depth, illustrating the enduring influence of historical legacies on present-day political ideologies. The theoretical approach of memory underscores the colonial exploitation of other cultures by Italy. Notably, Griffini highlights how memory could be approached from a different angle in order to humanise and confront Italy’s colonial past, instead of supressing it.
Griffini highlights how memory could be approached from a different angle in order to humanise and confront Italy’s colonial past, instead of supressing it.
The zenith of the book occurs in Chapter Eight, where Griffini articulates the central argument concerning the profound influence of memory on shaping political identities. This segment stands as the magnum opus of the analysis, persuasively contending that the historical omission of specific memories related to both embracing and challenging Italy’s colonial past serves as a catalyst for the resurgence of fascist attitudes. This provides a critical insight into Italy’s seemingly inescapable political patterns.
The historical omission of specific memories related to both embracing and challenging Italy’s colonial past serves as a catalyst for the resurgence of fascist attitudes.
The book not only navigates the complexities of Italian politics but also engages with theoretical debates, contributing valuable insights to the understanding of populism. By elucidating the links between emotionality and the radical right, Griffini demonstrates how political ideologies, when fused with emotional undercurrents, can yield extremist outcomes.
A noteworthy strength of the book is its emphasis on ethnocultural ideas and the notion of belonging to the nation, especially in the context of increased migration within the European Union. The examination of otherisation as a phenomenon serves as a profound analysis, unravelling how Italian voters perceive the intricate role of the nation and how this perception catalyses the rise of radical right movements.
While the discussion between colonial and political theory may initially challenge some readers, it ultimately contributes to the richness of the analysis. The book successfully navigates the fluid boundaries of these theories, illuminating historical concepts that persist in the shadows and continue to shape contemporary political landscapes. However, a clearer bridge between those two concepts would have been useful for readers who are not entirely familiar with all the technical terms explored in the book.
[The book] provides key findings that not only shed light on the surge of the radical right but also offer a template for understanding the intricate political dynamics in other European countries.
The Politics of Memory in the Italian Populist Radical Right emerges not only as an exploration of Italian politics in 2022 but as a timeless contribution to scholarly literature. It provides key findings that not only shed light on the surge of the radical right but also offer a template for understanding the intricate political dynamics in other European countries.
Griffini delves into Italy’s colonial past, shedding light on its historical neglect and the deliberate concealment of past atrocities. This collective memory has been influenced by the infiltration of fascist tendencies into contemporary Italian politics. While the rise of far-right parties was noticeable up until 2022, none matched the achievements of Meloni with her election that year. Griffini’s examination of Italy’s colonial history offers a partial explanation for the limited comprehension of the nation’s past, intricately intertwined with its fascist history.
While the rise of far-right parties was noticeable up until 2022, none matched the achievements of Meloni with her election that year
Also, the book’s refusal to indulge in unnecessary predictions is a testament to its commitment to historical rigor. Given the unpredictable nature of Italian politics, this decision aligns with the broader theme of acknowledging the complexity inherent in the nation’s political trajectory.
In conclusion, despite the potential challenge for some readers in navigating between colonial theory and the concept of memory, the book constitutes an important contribution to scholarship on political history and theory and memory studies. Further research in the field is important for a more profound understanding of the intricate political dynamics unfolding in other European countries, illuminating how the normalisation of the radical right often stems from historical complexities. This book is highly recommended for students exploring Italian politics in 2022 and academic scholars seeking familiarity with historical perspectives shaping the extremes of the political spectrum in Italy.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.
Image Credit: Alessia Pierdomenico on Shutterstock.
Court Approves Vigilante Mass Voter ChallengesDevastating Threat To 2024 Election
Be afraid. A federal court in Georgia ruled on Tuesday that the challenge to 360,000 Georgians' right to vote, suspiciously targeting Black voters, does not violate the federal Voting Rights Act. Judge Steve C. Jones slapped aside the suit brought by Stacy Abrams’ Fair Fight against the right-wing Texas group True the Vote, which had created... READ MORE
Latest Conservative Misinformation Warning as Anti-Sadiq Khan Camp Accused of ‘Gutter Politics’ Over Murder Stats
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
A local Conservative association has been accused of “gutter politics” after falsely claiming that the murder rate was higher in London than in New York ahead of this May’s London mayoral election.
The Tottenham Conservative Association put out a graphic on social media claiming the “London murder rate [is] higher than New York”, with a picture of Labour mayor Sadiq Khan.
The post, which approvingly included an image of disgraced Tory ex-PM and mayor Boris Johnson, claimed: “Knife crime in London is rising at its fastest rate in five years, with more than 40 incidents reported to the police every day. Gang warfare, street robbery & gun crime are all on the rise as well. End the Khan Crime Wave; #VoteConservative in May 2024.”
Twitter/X readers added a ‘Community Note’ providing important context: “London's murder rate in 2023 was MUCH lower than New York's. London's 2023 murder rate was 12.7 per million. New York's 2023 murder rate was 44.9 (8.46 million people with 380 murders).” The misleading post remains live as of lunchtime Wednesday (3 January).
Don't miss a story
Sign up to the Behind the Headlines newsletter (and get a free copy of Byline Times in the post)
Gavin Hales, a senior criminology research fellow at London Metropolitan University and senior associate fellow at the Police Foundation replied simply: “You're making stuff up.”
He added verified sources, noting: "London murder rate higher than New York"? London 2023: 104 murders, population c. 8.8m = 12 per million. NYC 2023: 380 murders, pop 8.3m = 45.6 [per million people]”.
One reader replied: “I promise I will vote Tory in the mayoral and general elections this year if you can back up that statement about murder rates in London vs NYC with reliable data. If you cannot do so then you just have to apologise.”
Another added: “Imagine using the disgraced former PM as an advert for anything…who [wasted] £55 million of taxpayers cash on a garden bridge.” A garden bridge which never materialised.
Other branded crime rises as a result of national Conservative austerity: “It is a Tory crime wave caused by enormous Tory cuts,” wrote activist MartinRemains.
It follows a now-deleted post from Tottenham Conservatives last November showing Keir Starmer with speech bubbles saying: “Greece: here are the marbles. Argentina: here are the Falklands. Rotherham: here are our children” - referring to the sex abuse ring in the Yorkshire town operating in the early 2000s.
Rob Blackie, Lib Dem London mayoral candidate, told Byline Times: “London's Conservatives are getting weirder and weirder.
“The Conservatives are more interested in dividing London than uniting it, chasing headlines rather than providing serious solutions. Their Mayoral candidate likes Brexit, Trump and tweets that praise far right Enoch Powell. And the Tottenham Conservatives appear to have completely lost the plot.
“We need a Mayoral election that holds Sadiq Khan to account without descending into the gutter. I am determined to provide that choice.”
It was meant to be a disaster, but the doomsayers appear to be in retreat.
Josiah Mortimer
Lib Dem campaigner Justin Hinchcliffe branded the Rotherham post “appalling politics.”
A source close to Sadiq Khan accepted there is a problem with youth violence in London, and elsewhere, but said “real progress” has been made on homicides.
They noted that the 104 homicides in 2023 is the lowest number for any year since Khan took office. There were 109 homicides in the full calendar year 2022, 153 in 2019 and 117 in 2016.
Homicides committed using a knife or other sharp instrument (68) and homicides committed using a firearm (8) are both lower than any year since 2016. Burglary is down 19 per cent and overall gun crime down 20 per cent since Sadiq became Mayor, the source added.
Overall, the rate of violence against the person offences per 1,000 of the population is lower in London (27.74) than the average across England and Wales (35.26) and considerably lower than most similar forces nationally (51.89) according to the latest ONS crime stats for the twelve months to June 2023.
The affair follows Rishi Sunak coming under fire this Tuesday (2nd January) for falsely claiming the Government had “cleared” the “asylum backlog” of 112,000 long-standing unresolved claims. In fact, 4,500 historic “complex cases” continue to lack a decision, while the number of current asylum claims that are unresolved sits at nearly 100,000.
The endorsement thrusts her campaign into the centre of a debate about empire in what is a proudly multicultural city
Josiah Mortimer
Embarrassingly, Sunak's X post was publicly corrected with a note stating the backlog remains, accompanied by a BBC report link disproving his claim.
Refugee law specialist Daniel Sohege wrote: “Government's claims about "clearing the backlog" aren't just "misleading", they're an outright lie. They're so busy chasing headlines they are putting vulnerable people at even more risk, and gearing up for countless legal battles.”
Even Spectator editor Fraser Nelson branded it a “false claim”.
In December, Tory MP and former Anti-Corruption Champion John Penrose told PoliticsHome it will be a “huge challenge” to tackle election misinformation this year, adding: “If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, then this is an arms race".
Tottenham Conservatives and CCHQ have been contacted for comment.
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him...
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com