Labour Party
‘Starmer’s Refusal to Confront the Press Isn’t Just a Mistake – It’s Irresponsible’
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
In his new year speech, Keir Starmer held out his familiar vague promises of change after this year’s election and warned us that the Conservatives would go down fighting dirty, but he once again failed even to mention the media or the press.
Bizarre as it seems, the Labour Leader seems determined to go through this landmark year blithely pretending that the extraordinarily powerful, ideologically-driven and extremely destructive elephant that is our billionaire-owned national press simply isn’t in the room.
This is not merely a misjudgement. It is irresponsible.
If Starmer really cares about the future of Britain as he claims to, he cannot possibly imagine that real change is possible without making the Mail, The Sun, The Times and the Telegraph accountable for their lying and thuggery, and without freeing BBC journalism so it can serve the country as it should.
The logic behind the Labour silence on this issue is clearly that acknowledging the need for media reform would provoke the elephant and make it harder to achieve the essential first goal of winning the election. In other words, if Starmer is forced to defend himself against the inevitable charge of stifling press freedom, voters will be distracted from Labour’s strongest issue: the failures of the Conservatives.
There are several problems with this logic.
To start with, Starmer can’t seriously hope to determine the day-to-day agenda of a general election campaign. That power rests with the Conservative press and no one else. It will decide what gets talked about and the BBC will follow its lead as it always does.
For sure, Labour will have a campaign media plan. It will give daily press conferences and put up shadow ministers to utter soundbites. But this is blowing smoke into a gale. I recall a hapless remain campaign spokesperson, after the Brexit defeat of 2016, describing how the papers ignored everything they put out, to the point where someone called from the Mail to ask them not to bother sending press releases because nobody there was even reading them.
Three Sensible, Non-Radical Things Labour Could Do to Reform our News Media
Nothing drastic is required if a new government is to tackle the obvious crisis in the way we get our news, while the benefits of change could be enormous
Brian Cathcart
But what about the Mirror and the Guardian? Don’t they cover things more even-handedly? Sadly, they can be led by the right-wing papers just as much as the BBC. Even where they follow their own agenda, they do not address the swing voters Labour needs. In electoral terms, they don’t matter.
In short, whatever Starmer and his advisors like to imagine, they will fight the election on terms dictated by the Mail, The Sun, The Times and the Telegraph. So the question is: would it make things any worse if Starmer included media reform in his manifesto?
Here we have to make some calculation of how bad it will be – and the answer is that it will be as bad as the papers can possibly make it.
No reference to history is useful here because the press and the country have changed and this will not be an election like ones we have seen in the past.
Bear in mind the example of the 2020 US Presidential Election. Few saw it coming, but that ended in insurrection and a large part of the hysteria behind that insurrection was generated by Fox News, the proprietor of which, significantly, is Rupert Murdoch.
The culture of British right-wing national papers today is not far removed from the Fox model. They have shaken off the shackles of convention and respectability; they have little respect for the constitution or the rule of law; and they long ago gave up even paying lip-service to objectivity, accuracy or balance. They are wildly irresponsible propaganda tools, just like Fox.
The latest attack on Starmer in The Sun is just a small example. Because he worked to save people from the death penalty in jurisdictions around the world, The Sun is accusing him of helping murderers escape justice. This is interesting less for its twisted logic than for the sheer effort of research that the struggling Sun was prepared to put into it.
So far as the forthcoming election is concerned, the starting point must be that their behaviour will be worse than anything we have seen – worse even than their approach to previous Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. Let your imagination run riot.
The law will be no obstacle, for one thing. We have seen in recent years that these papers care nothing for electoral law, for political convention or for the authority of the courts, and with the nightmare (in their view) of a Labour government in prospect they will not row back but go into overdrive.
‘It’s Not the Economy, Stupid. It’s the Press’
The right-wing papers have trashed the country and they mean to go on doing so whoever wins the next election. We must stop them, writes Brian Cathcart
Brian Cathcart
Starmer should also recognise the lessons of the continuing phone-hacking litigation: that a lot of these papers think nothing of industrial-scale law-breaking if it suits their purpose. There is compelling (albeit feebly contested) evidence, for example, that long after unlawful practices were supposed to have ended, Murdoch’s people hacked the phones and spied on dozens of Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians, not only in pursuit of news stories but for political and commercial motives too. And we have seen that even when the law wakes up to such activities, it is so weak and slow in responding it scarcely troubles the perpetrators.
In his speech, Starmer warned about Conservative tactics in election year, but again he is looking the wrong way: nothing the Tory Party might do on its own could begin to match the whirlwind of destruction that the national press will bring down upon Labour, the electoral process, and the tradition of orderly transition of power.
This is not to suggest that Starmer and Labour won’t win. So calamitous have been the past few years of Conservative Government – for which the press bears so much blame – that he probably can’t lose now.
What it tells us, however, is (a) that these papers will not allow him to win without inflicting the maximum possible damage on him, his party and the country; and (b) that pretending, as Starmer currently does, that the UK has no press problem will not stop that happening.
In the short term, therefore, his policy is misguided. There are also long-term consequences of his refusal to face facts.
If he wins without promising media reforms, we should not kid ourselves that he will then set about implementing them anyway. That is naïve.
For a start, there is no history in this country of parties being more radical in office than in opposition. The moment they get into Downing Street, prime ministers start trimming in preparation for the next election – or to put it another way, Starmer as prime minister is likely to cling to the same logic about not upsetting the press that has Labour in its grip today.
And even if he wanted to introduce media reform when in office, he would be restrained by its absence from the manifesto on which he was elected. The constitutional foundations for action would be weak.
Probably more important, however, is that no matter how big a majority he wins, the right-wing press will give him no breathing space. They will hound him and his ministers day in and day out, deploying all their powers, lawful and unlawful, to limit his room for manoeuvre. Indeed their aim, Fox News-style, will be to make the country ungovernable so long as Labour is in office.
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.
Back in 2012, four prime ministers – John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron – gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices, and ethics of the British press, following the exposure of the phone-hacking scandal. All four admitted that they should have done something about the press. But they all sent the same message: it is always easier for a prime minister to put it off, to duck the responsibility.
With Conservative help, the press weathered the Leveson storm – and instead of learning lessons, doubled-down on its own corruption. Just look at the damage it has done since then: from the UK's hard Brexit to the short-lived premiership of Liz Truss; the Partygate scandal; COVID contracts, cronyism and pandemic mismanagement; rising numbers of food banks; the unlawful Rwanda scheme; and the near-destruction of the NHS and the criminal justice system. The list is endless.
If Keir Starmer does not find the courage to tackle it now, the right-wing press will continue and complete the destruction of everything that was good about the UK. And he will share the blame.
Over a Million Free Meals Delivered Over Christmas in London as Sadiq Khan Demands More Government Support This Winter
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
An estimated 1.3 million meals were delivered to struggling families across London over the Christmas break, as part of a £3.5m ‘Free Holiday Meals’ programme funded by City Hall.
The rollout means that more than 10.1m meals have now been provided to Londoners during school holidays and weekends since April last year, according to GLA figures shared with Byline Times. But the Mayor is calling for more support from Government to continue to provide similar schemes.
The holiday meals programme is coordinated by the non-profit Felix Project, and the Mayor’s Fund for London, as part of an emergency funding programme.
Families across the capital received the free meals at a range of school holiday activities and via charities, amid continued household pressures from rising energy bills, rent and food costs.
The meals are in addition to term-time funding for up to 287,000 primary school children at London’s state primary schools. London primary pupils now get free school meals as part of a £130m scheme over the current school year.
Don't miss a story
Sign up to the Behind the Headlines newsletter (and get a free copy of Byline Times in the post)
The mayor’s office says it is spending another £80m to help those struggling with the rising cost-of-living to tackle fuel poverty, food insecurity, and support renters and those on benefits.
London mayor Sadiq Khan told Byline Times: “Winter can be incredibly tough for families who are already struggling due to the cost-of-living crisis, which is why I’m proud of the difference that our Free Holiday Meals programme is making for Londoners. It is shocking that in a city as prosperous as London so many people have to rely on the work of charities to feed themselves and their families.
“We desperately need the Government to step forward and increase the amount of support available to families and make sure no child goes hungry this winter, as we build a fairer and better London for all.”
Asked whether Sir Keir Starmer should provide funding for universal free school meals nationally, a spokesman for Sadiq Khan said: “The Mayor has found money in his budget to help fund holiday meals for struggling Londoners in a way that works for the capital. The Mayor completely understands that given the dreadful economic mess the Tories have created, the Labour Party can only outline its costed national policy offer in this area nearer to the election.” The election is now expected to be this autumn.
Rachel Ledwith, Head of Community Engagement at The Felix Project said the free meals over Christmas were “vital” in helping to relieve some families’ budget pressures.
The scheme is funded through the Mayor’s Fund for London, a charity funded by City Hall which provides free healthy meals to low-income families and young people through over 300 community partners and 80 so-called hubs, where food is provided alongside a range of school holiday activities.
The endorsement thrusts her campaign into the centre of a debate about empire in what is a proudly multicultural city
Josiah Mortimer
The Felix Project delivers surplus food from a range of suppliers to nearly 1,000 charity organisations and schools that support those in need.
A further £425,000 is being provided to The Felix Project to expand its capacity and allow it to deliver food on Saturdays, as well as during the week.
The move will enable around 100 new charitable organisations on their waiting list to be supplied with food, and help The Felix Project deliver an additional 20 tonnes of food every weekend, which will create around 2.5-3m meals over the next year.
The SNP in Scotland has also introduced free school meals for those in primary school years 1-5. Many parts of Wales under the Labour-Plaid Cymru administration now offer universal free school meals to all primary school pupils, while the Government there plans to roll it out across all of Wales by September this year.
Many low-income children are already entitled to free school meals in England. However, Labour mayors including Khan and Manchester’s Andy Burnham have been pushing Sir Keir Starmer to back universal free school meals for all primary school children, on the basis that it would reduce stigma and encourage learning.
Last June, a Labour spokesperson rebuffed the calls, telling The Times: “This is not Labour policy and we have no plans to implement it.” As LabourList reported, officials were said to view other measures as “more effective” when it comes to cutting child poverty.
Meanwhile, a key London Assembly committee has asked the Mayor of London to confirm “as soon as possible” whether he intends to extend his Free School Meals programme for another academic year.
It was meant to be a disaster, but the doomsayers appear to be in retreat.
Josiah Mortimer
Last month, the London Assembly’s budget committee questioned whether the Mayor's universal free school meal programme will be continued for 2024-25 and “whether there are plans to extend its scope,” for example to secondary schools.
The Mayor’s Deputy Chief of Staff told Assembly Members a decision had not been made on the future of the programme, explaining “the Mayor thinks this is a success, he would like to do it, but we have no idea yet whether we have the money to do so”.
The committee argued that implementing the programme has taken major work from boroughs and schools, and they need early notice to help with planning. Members wrote to the Mayor urging him to confirm his intention for the future of the free school meals programme as early as possible.
Sadiq Khan is also calling for policy changes from Westminster to tackle the cost of living crisis, including funding an “energy lifeline tariff” - a baseline amount of free energy for the poorest households before charges begin, as well as an end to forced energy disconnections or forced prepayment meter installations by energy suppliers.
The mayor has also demanded that City Hall gets the power to freeze private rents in London, which he says could save renters £3,000 over two years. The Government has rejected the suggestion and Keir Starmer's party does not back rent controls nationally.
Mayor Khan also backs lifting the benefit cap, removing the controversial two child limit, and suspending ‘no recourse to public funds’ conditions, further policies which put him at odds with Labour nationally.
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
Keir Starmer Faces an Immediate Test of His Pledge to ‘Crackdown on Cronyism’
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Occasionally a politician makes a commitment that you instantly know will be repeated back at them endlessly in the years to come.
One such moment took place on Thursday, when the Labour leader Keir Starmer set out his pledge to “restore standards in public life” if he becomes Prime Minister with “a total crackdown on cronyism”.
“No-one will be above the law in a Britain I lead”, Starmer insisted.
The Labour leader’s cast iron commitment to eliminate the sort of bad behaviour demonstrated by the current Government over the last 14 years was crystal clear.
However, this commitment was put to an immediate test when he was asked by one journalist in the room about reports of the relationship between his close political ally Peter Mandelson and the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Asked if Mandelson, who continues to advise the Labour leader, has “questions to answer” about his previous relationship with Epstein, Starmer entirely dodged the question, replying that “I don't know any more than you do and therefore, there's not really much I can add to what you already know I'm afraid and that's simply the state of the affairs".
For a politician who had just made restoring standards in public life the centre piece of his campaign to become Prime Minister, this was hardly a satisfying answer.
Reports about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein first emerged in June last year, at which point Starmer’s spokesman insisted that the Labour leader had “no reason to believe” that Mandelson wasn’t a fit and proper person.
Yet the Labour leader is now insisting that at no point in the intervening seven months has he ever thought to seek any more information from his adviser about that relationship.
EXCLUSIVE
Major Political Reform Could Secure Key Labour Target Voters, Study Suggests
“I think the whole thing is thoroughly broken at this point” a focus group participant said
Josiah Mortimer
Setting the Bar High
Other doubts continue to surround the Labour leader’s commitment to standards in public life.
He has already abandoned most of the ten pledges he made while running for the leadership, with the full list now deleted from his website. Subsequent pledges to spend £28 billion a year on green investments have also been watered down, with the Labour leader again suggesting today that the target would only remain if it met “our fiscal rules”.
Of course political commitments are always subject to circumstances and there is arguably a difference between commitments made in a leadership campaign and those made before a general election.
However, if you choose to run a campaign based on highlighting your own political integrity, then you have to be make sure that it is able to fully stand up to public scrutiny.
Luckily for Starmer, the bar set by the current Government should not be particularly hard for him to clear. Since promising to restore “integrity, professionalism and accountability” to Government, Rishi Sunak has presided over a series of ministerial scandals, while breaking multiple pledges made just months ago.
This breach has furthered a gradual collapse in trust in both him and his Government over recent years. To give just one recent example, new polling conducted by pollsters We Think for Byline Times, shows that Sunak’s claim to the Covid Inquiry to have lost access to every single WhatsApp message he sent during the pandemic is believed by just 23% of voters, compared to 77% who disbelieve him.
However, in choosing to emphasise his own commitment to restore public trust in politics, Starmer is asking the public to judge him by the highest possible standards, if and when he does become Prime Minister.
Time will tell whether that decision proves to have been a wise one.
Major Political Reform Could Secure Key Labour Target Voters, Study Suggests
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Two key voter groups which “hold the key to the next General Election” for Labour are among the most keen to see changes to the way politics is done, new research suggests.
A YouGov survey, conducted for pressure groups Unlock Democracy and Compass, reveals a particularly strong appetite for systemic political change among the ‘Patriotic Left’ voter group, dubbed ‘Workington man’. Seven in ten - many of whom will be considering backing Labour having voted Conservative in 2019 - think this should be a first term priority for the next Government.
The poll also shows a majority of ‘Disillusioned Suburbans’ - a second key target group also known as ‘Stevenage woman’ - think the political system is not working, with more than seven in ten supporting some degree of reform.
Focus groups emphasised the lack of trust in politicians to deliver reform, but the findings point to a vote-winning opportunity for political parties, especially Labour, if they are able to prove that they are serious about reforming how politics is conducted, the campaign groups argue.
Don't miss a story
Sign up to the Behind the Headlines newsletter (and get a free copy of Byline Times in the post)
In the focus groups, participants drew a clear link between the Westminster system and the failure of politics to tackle the big issues, with many pointing to a lack of accountability and short-term calculation taking precedence over long-term planning.
One participant commented: “It’s the Westminster system - politicians aren't held to account long term and the five-year cycle of Government [doesn't] make for long term planning and development”.
Another concluded: “I think the whole thing is thoroughly broken at this point… We need a new system that represents modern society and the needs of real people.”
Tom Brake, Director of Unlock Democracy, said: “Carrying on as usual will not suffice - Keir Starmer knows this. Backing away from serious change will look like Labour is putting Party before country. “These results give the lie to the suggestion that the public aren’t interested in overhauling the way our politics works. People want change - and not in the distant future, but now or the first term of the next Government.”
“It’s also clear which reforms the public think would have the most impact on reforming our politics: a change to the voting system and reform of the House of Lords, in that order. Any party that can set out a credible programme for reshaping our democracy, demonstrating its positive impact on issues like the cost of living crisis, could reap the rewards in the ballot box at the next General Election.”
Neal Lawson, Director of Compass, added: “The penny is dropping amongst these key voters that nothing works unless democracy works. Renewing our democracy is a first order issue for any incoming new Government.”
The polling in October, now seen by Byline Times, found that nationally more than seven in ten think the political system isn’t working. Nearly 9 in 10 want to see changes to the political system and four in ten say ‘a great deal of reform’ is needed.
Over two thirds (68%) of all voters, and three quarters of pro-reform Labour voters, believe political reform should be a first term issue for the next Labour administration.
And changing the Westminster voting system to Proportional Representation and reforming the House Of Lords are seen as the two changes that would have the most impact on our political system.
EXCLUSIVE
The change means parties will now be allowed to spend over £30m in order to win a General Election
Josiah Mortimer
Voters also say an independent commission of experts would be most trusted to deliver political reforms – more than eight times as many would trust this compared to the government.
The so-called Patriotic Left is one of the groups keenest on change. More than eight in ten say the political system isn’t working, while six in ten believe a great deal of reform is required (just 1% believe that no reform is required). Seven in ten believe that this is a first term issue for the next Government.
Disillusioned Suburbans, although less insistent on change, still do not favour the status quo. Nearly six in ten think the political system is working badly. More than seven in ten think some or a great deal of reform is required to the political system. And the majority (56%) think that political reforms are needed in the first term (23% are undecided)
The survey shows both groups, while supportive of a broad suite of reforms, favour PR for the Commons over Lords reform by a margin of just under two to one. In-depth conversations in focus group work with Disillusioned Suburbans found they were also pressing for action now, but with little confidence politicians understood their concerns or could deliver.
YouGov carried out focus group research with Disillusioned Suburbans from the North of England (31 st October) and South of England (2nd November). For the quantitative work, YouGov polled on the 25th -26th September a representative sample of 2,183 GB adults.
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
Pressure for a Windfall Tax on Banks Grows As ‘Big Four’ Net Huge Profits
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Labour MP Richard Burgon will demand a new windfall tax on bank profits, mirroring the recent tax imposed on energy companies, in a parliamentary debate today (December 8).
The Labour MP is expected to argue that an extra levy on excess profits could generate billions of pounds for public services and provide relief to those struggling in the current economic climate.
Burgon’s speech is set to highlight the disproportionate profits banks have been accruing amid the cost of living crisis, noting: “Just like the oil and gas companies, the banks have used this crisis to line their pockets."
The MP underscores the disconnect between struggling families grappling with mortgages and rents, and the banks that are profiting from higher interest rates. Burgon plans to note that increased rates have not benefited savers, but have instead been “hoarded by the banks creating a windfall of many billions.”
Don't miss a story
The proposal comes against the backdrop of soaring bank profits in the first nine months of 2023, with the 'big four' - Lloyds, Barclays, HSBC, and NatWest - amassing £41 billion in pre-tax profits. This figure nearly doubles the £23 billion earned in the same period last year, according to analysis by Unite the Union.
The Government has cut taxes on banks, with Conservative cuts to Bank Surcharge and Bank Levy totalling £22bn over the next six years, according to recent Liberal Democrat analysis of the OBR’s Autumn Statement data.
Jeremy Hunt cut the Bank Surcharge from 8% to 3% in April this year, even as he increased taxes on millions of families by extending the freeze in the Income Tax personal allowance and higher-rate threshold.
The Conservatives cut the Bank Levy every year from 2016 to 2021. The two bank taxes are forecast to raise a combined £2.4 billion next year, down from £4.7 billion in 2016-17 – a 60% real-terms cut, the Lib Dems argue.
Burgon hopes to issue a fierce rebuke of the government's fiscal approach in light of the vast profits, challenging the notion that austerity and cuts are the only viable solutions.
‘From BP to Banks: There’s Lots of Money Around – It’s Just Not In Workers’ Pockets’
Despite Government calls for pay restraint, new figures show some people are doing very well out of the cost of living crisis, writes Josiah Mortimer
Josiah Mortimer
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s recent Autumn Statement set out unspecified cuts of 16% to unprotected Government departments within the next few years - which is paying for the pre-election National Insurance tax cuts.
“Are we going to allow this government to claim that more austerity and cuts are inevitable and that public investment is unaffordable?” the Leeds North MP is likely to ask, calling for a tax system that demands more from the wealthiest.
The proposed windfall tax, according to Burgon, could raise between £4 billion and £16 billion this year from the profits of the big four banks alone. Labour has not formally backed a windfall tax on banks but it is a key call of Socialist Campaign Group MPs, the parliamentary party’s left flank.
Burgon plans to cite Spain's progressive government, which introduced a 4.8% Windfall Levy on certain bank incomes and commissions, as a potential model. And the Leeds MP will reference a past precedent set by Margaret Thatcher, who introduced a 2.5% tax on banks’ non-interest-bearing deposits.
Amid controversy over Labour leader Keir Starmer’s apparent praise for the late Conservative PM, he is expected to say: “Thatcher said that the banks had ‘made their large profits as a result of our policy of high-interest rates rather than because of increased efficiency or better service to the customer.’ Such a tax in the UK, according to Positive Money calculations, could raise up to £11bn today.”
Burgon's call for a fairer tax system is supported by public opinion, he will argue. A recent poll commissioned for the TUC found that three-quarters of the public, including 76% of Conservative 2019 voters, support a windfall tax on banks’ excess profits.
The Labour MP’s call for a windfall tax on banks is a challenge not only to the Government but to the Labour leadership to be bolder on tax.
Analysis by Positive Money has shown that higher interest rates mean that the Bank of England is expected to pay an estimated £75bn of interest on banks’ risk free reserves over 2023 and 2024, with a total of around £150bn due to be paid out between 2022 and 2028.
Calls for a windfall tax on banks have been echoed by other Labour MPs, including Angela Eagle, John McDonnell, and Clive Lewis. Polling commissioned by Positive Money found the majority of the public supports a windfall tax on banks.
The debate is expected to end by 7:30pm.
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
The British Public Have Made Their Minds Up About Rishi Sunak and it Doesn’t Look Good
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
The British public appear to have made their minds up about the Prime Minister, and their view is unlikely to go down well inside Downing Street.
In recent months Rishi Sunak’s Government have launched a series of ‘relaunches’ or ‘resets’ designed to deal with polls showing they remain in excess of twenty points behind the opposition Labour Party.
Last week the Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced a series of tax cuts designed to transform public opinion about Sunak’s Government. This was followed this week by the Prime Minister engaging in an extended public spat with the Greek Prime Minister over the fate of the Elgin Marbles.
However, new polling commissioned by Byline Times this week suggests that these various attempts to change the narrative about Sunak and his Government are not working.
Asked by pollsters We Think whether they viewed Sunak as more of a weak or more of a strong leader, almost three quarters (73%) said they saw him as more weak, compared to just 27% who saw him as more strong.
Even among current Conservative voters, four out of ten (39%) say they view him as a more weak than strong leader.
By contrast Keir Starmer is seen in a significantly less negative light than the Prime Minister. Asked whether they saw him as more weak, or strong, 55% of all voters said they saw him as being more weak, compared to 45% who saw him as more strong.
Labour voters were also less likely to see their leader as weak than Conservative voters, with just 26% labelling Starmer as more weak than strong.
Voters were also asked to pick from a list of critical and complimentary adjectives to describe the Prime Minister and his main opponent.
Among all voters the most popular words used to describe Sunak were ‘Untrustworthy’, ‘Weak’ and ‘Entitled’.
By contrast the most popular words used to describe his Labour opponent Keir Starmer were ‘Boring’, ‘Responsible’ and ‘Thoughtful’.
Recent figures showing record immigration numbers also appear to have damaged perceptions of Sunak's Government.
84% said the Government's immigration policy had been a failure, compared to just 16% who said it had been successful. Overall voters are now more likely to trust Labour on the issue than the Conservatives by 41% to 27%.
Eat Out to Help The Virus: How Rishi Sunak Avoided the Science on Covid
New revelations suggest the Prime Minister had a reckless disregard for the science of protecting the public during a global pandemic
Adam Bienkov
Sunak's row with the Greek Prime Minister also does not appear to have gone down well with British voters.
Asked whether Sunak did the right or wrong thing by cancelling his meeting with the Greek PM, following his intervention over the Elgin Marbles, 43% said it was the wrong thing to do, compared to just 15% who agreed with Downing Street.
Sunak used Prime Minister’s Questions this week to accuse Starmer of “siding with an EU country” over the issue, despite Starmer ruling out changing the law to allow the marbles’ return.
However, our poll found that voters are more likely than not to say that the Marbles should be returned to Greece, by 44% to 20%.
The UK Should Reverse Brexit, say voters 
The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen caused controversy this week after suggesting that the UK would likely end up reversing Brexit and returning to the EU.
Her comments were rejected by both Downing Street and the Labour Party. However, our poll suggests that most voters agree with her.
Asked whether the UK should one day rejoin the EU, 61% of voters said that we should, compared to just 39% who said that we shouldn’t.
However, voters aree split down the middle on whether such a reunification will ever actually happen, with 50% saying it will, compared to 50% saying it won't.
Younger voters are more confident of Brexit being one day reversed, with 59% of those under the age of 40 saying it will be, compared to just 44% of those over 40.
The findings come as Byline Times publishes its three year investigation revealing the scale of Brexit regret among ordinary Brits.
The investigation can be read in the current edition of our monthly newspaper available to subscribers and in shops and supermarkets across the country.
‘Red Wall’ Voters No Longer Trust the Conservative Party and are Switching to Labour
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
The Labour Party is now more trusted than the Conservatives in the ‘Red Wall’ seats responsible for the Party’s 2019 election victory, new polling data has found.
Examining 40 Red Wall seats, all of which with the exception of Hartlepool were won by the Conservatives in the 2019 election, polling firm Redfield and Walton Strategies has found that Labour lead the Conservatives by 24%, an increase of 8% since the most recent poll. Meanwhile, the Conservatives have slumped to 26%, their lowest vote share in a Red Wall constituency since June 25th, as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s approval rating registered at -21%, its lowest since early July.
Redfield and Wilton strategies found that the 10% of respondents that were undecided as to who they would vote for comprised 12% of 2019 Conservative voters, yet just three per cent of 2019 Labour voters. 84% of those who voted Labour 4 years ago said that they would do so again compared to just 50% of 2019 Conservative voters, as Labour led the Conservatives by 21% with the inclusion of undecided respondents.
Trust in the Conservatives is Waning
The data found that 45% of Red Wall respondents did not trust the Conservatives to manage the economy, an increase of four percentage points compared to the most recent poll, while just 12% significantly trusted the Party, down 5% from October 22nd. Indeed, Labour are now more trusted than the Conservatives to tackle crime and immigration, issues typically prioritised by traditionally - minded voters, as Keir Starmer’s Party has amassed a 13% lead on both issues.
Indeed, Redfield and Wilton strategies found that respondents trusted Labour more than the Conservatives on every policy issue listed; Labour led by more than 25 percentage points in supporting the NHS, where 45% of voters trusted them compared with 16% for the Conservatives, and tackling poverty, where 40% of respondents trusted Labour and 15% trusted the Conservatives. Labour also led by 23% on addressing the housing crisis and by 24% on ‘representing the interests of the North’.
The data, which was published on November 19th, shortly before Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced the recent Autumn Statement, arguably reflects a broader regional realignment, as Red Wall respondents were significantly more likely to trust Labour in addressing regional disparities. Despite the Conservatives having promised to deliver “higher wages, a higher living wage, and higher productivity” in the aftermath of the 2019 election, the Party has further entrenched regional inequities, as the Redfield and Wilton poll found that 65% of Red Wall respondents did not believe that the Conservatives had taken adequate measures to address the cost of living crisis.
Yet the Autumn statement has been criticised as a measure which may further widen regional inequalities; think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has found that “for every £100 Jeremy Hunt spent on personal tax cuts, £46 will benefit the richest fifth of households. Only £3 of every £100 of tax cuts will go to the worst-off families,” arguing that Hunt’s tax cuts “will mainly benefit people in London & the South East of England”. Indeed, those living in London and the South East of England stand to gain an average of £319 and £290 per working age person per year from the Chancellor’s National Insurance reductions, while those in the North East, Yorkshire and the Humber and Wales will accrue just £192, £214 and £211 respectively.
EXCLUSIVE
The change means parties will now be allowed to spend over £30m in order to win a General Election
Josiah Mortimer
A Widening Regional Gap
IPPR’s principal economist and head of quantitative research, Henry Parkes, stated that the cuts would “disproportionately benefit the richest areas of the country most – the opposite of levelling up”. “More broadly these tax cuts are accompanied by plans to make deep cuts in public services and investment in the future - an approach that commands very little support from the public and will make it harder, not easier, for the UK economy to grow as it needs to,” he added.
Analysis published by the Resolution Foundation concluded that households across the country will be, on average, £1,900 worse off than at the beginning of this Parliament, as real disposable household incomes reset to decline by 3.1% between December 2019 and January 2025.. Meanwhile, the richest fifth of the population are set to gain, on average, 5 times more than the bottom fifth from the Statement’s tax and benefit measures, while the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will see its budget cut by 14%, the equivalent of £17 billion, between 2022/3 and 2027/8.
Moreover, according to OBR estimates, living standards are set to be “3.5% lower in 2024-2025 than their pre-pandemic levels,” representing “the largest reduction in living standards since ONS records began in the 1950s”.
The tax cuts and benefit measures outlined in the Autumn Statement are unlikely to address broader trends indicating widening regional economic disparities, which have been highlighted by Redfield and Wilton’s polling data. Stagnating real wages, which are not due to recover to pre - 2008 levels until 2028, and sluggish business investment, which has increased by less than 1% in real terms since 2016, have ensured that even the £4.5 billion worth of investment in advanced manufacturing guaranteed by the Chancellor is unlikely to rejuvenate economic activity, particularly given declining disposable incomes.
Hannah Peaker, Director of Policy and Advocacy at think tank the New Economics Foundation (NEF) described the Statement as a “living standards disaster,” arguing that “a small cut to National Insurance will provide little relief, and it will benefit the wealthiest households and regions the most – at the same time as forcing further cuts to our already fragile public services.”
Don't miss a story
“In the long run, any plan to tackle these issues needs to grasp the fundamental drivers of regional inequalities, which will require giving local areas the powers and funding to make long-term investments in things like housing, transport and places,” she added.
The NEF’s research situated the Autumn Statement within the context of broader regional economic stagnation, concluding that average incomes in the North East have fallen by more than £1,300 since 2015, a figure which stands at £1,000 for all incomes across Northern households.
Redfield and Wilton’s research has shown that following prolonged wage stagnation and declining regional investment, the same Red Wall areas which largely voted for the Conservatives in 2019 are rapidly losing trust in the government, regarding Labour as more competent on a series of issues including those traditionally prioritised by Conservatives. Viewed within the context of the recent Autumn Statement, the polling suggests that prolonged regional underinvestment and the inequalities it has generated may incur severe electoral implications for the government.
Subscribe to Byline Times
This website is free. We don't have a paywall, there are no ads, we don't profile you with intrusive analytics or track you with cookies. Unlike most UK papers, Byline Times is subscriber-funded. Our team is small, we keep overheads low, we pay journalists fairly... and we pay our taxes in the UK.
An easy way to support us is to receive our newsletter emails (and install our app, for iOS or Android); we gain insight into our readership, and you make sure you don't miss vital news.
Sign up to Behind the Headlines emails
Subscribing to our print newspaper (from £3.75/month) is the best possible support for our journalism. We also sell gift vouchers and books.
Gift cards
Books
Naz Shah Effectively Quits Labour Frontbench in Defiance of Starmer on Gaza Ceasefire
Newsletter offer
Receive our Behind the Headlines email and we'll post a free copy of Byline Times
Labour's Shadow Minister for Crime Reduction has become the first member of Starmer's team to effectively quit over the Labour leader's opposition to calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, amid Israel's military response to Hamas' October terror attacks.
In a speech to the Commons, the Labour shadow minister and Bradford West MP said: "Our values push us to do better, and this is why despite all the risks to our personal positions, we must do what is right...
"A Palestinian child is killed every 10 minutes. For the people of Palestine, every minute, every hour, every day we wait is another orphan, another grieving mother and another family wiped out.
"This is why in standing to save innocent lives of both Palestinians and Israelis, and representing the people of Bradford West, in today’s motion I will be voting for an immediate ceasefire."
After her defiant address to MPs, Shah told Byline Times: "I have never voted against my party and should this mean that I lose my frontbench position, it's something I'm willing to accept as this is about more than me - it's about innocent Palestinians losing their lives."
Sir Keir Starmer's spokesman appeared to confirm to journalists on Wednesday afternoon that Labour frontbenchers who defy the party whip - by backing the Scottish National Party's motion demanding a ceasefire - would be sacked from their posts.
A dozen Labour frontbenchers could defy HQ over the issue, in what could be the Labour leader's biggest parliamentary rebellion since he was elected. Labour has called for longer 'humanitarian pauses' rather than a ceasefire, saying Israel has a right to defend itself and respond to the October 7 attacks.
Shah has held her post since December 2021.
Don't miss a story
Naz Shah's Speech in Full
The attack against innocent Israelis on October 7 was an egregious crime against humanity.
Families of those killed continue to mourn the loss of their loved ones, and families of those taken hostage praying for their safe return. It would be a grave injustice, to not recognise acts of terror committed by Hamas for what they are.
In the same way, it would be a grave injustice if the world turned a blind eye, whilst innocent Palestinians are being murdered by the hour.
More civilians killed in 6 weeks in Gaza – than civilians killed in 20 months in the Russia-Ukraine war. More children killed in Gaza than the annual number of children killed across all conflict zones since 2019.
More UN workers killed in Gaza, than in any comparable period in the UN’s history. More journalists killed in Gaza, than in any conflict period since 1992.
More bombs have been dropped on the Gaza strip in a few weeks of this conflict, than the number of bombs that were dropped on Afghanistan by the U.S.-led coalition in all of 2019, a country which is 1800 times larger than the Gaza strip.
Hospitals have been bombed, refugee camps have been bombed, United Nations schools bombed, Ambulances bombed, bakeries bombed, Mosques and churches bombed, Northern Gaza bombed, Gaza City bombed, Khan Younis Bombed, the Rafah border bombed.
Almost every inch of the Gaza strip has been bombed.
Over 11,000 innocent civilians killed, the hopes, dreams, and futures of nearly 5000 Palestinian children ended in mass graves.
2.3 million people fleeing death and destruction, babies dying in incubators, pregnant women having Cesarean without anaesthetic. No fuel to power hospitals. No food to feed the living and searching for clean water being as rare as searching for gold.
Make no mistake, this is a humanitarian catastrophe. I urge members to back an immediate ceasefire on all sides and push for the release of hostages.
It’s a call backed by 120 members of the U N Security council, backed by 17 UN Agencies, backed by the UN General Secretary, backed by the World Health Organisation, backed by the World Food Programme, backed by Amnesty International, backed by over 600 leading international NGOs including Oxfam, Save the children, Christian Aid, Medical Aid for Palestinians, The international committee for refugees, backed by the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury, backed by the overwhelming British public and now backed by President Macron of France.
‘The Anti-Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions Bill is Another Way to Silence Pro-Palestinian Voices’
A bill to restrict public bodies from making ethical financial decisions based on the conduct of foreign states makes no distinction between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Sharmen Rahman
Calls for an immediate ceasefire are growing day by day, and seen as the only viable solution to future peace in the region.
Almost every single international aid agency in the entire world is saying vital humanitarian aid cannot be delivered without a ceasefire.
The very agencies whose expertise we rely upon in other conflicts and take their lead, so why not this time?
We need a political solution to an issue which leads to peace, not one that ends in a way which is so horrific, it emboldens more terror in the region.
Injustice is the greatest barrier to peace, and the truth is we cannot expect peace unless we enable justice to be delivered.
And nothing symbolises our British values better than the statue of lady justice towering over the Old Bailey.
Figuratively blinded because justice is unbiased, the scales representing the impartiality of decisions and the sword, a symbol of the power of justice.
These values embody our British way of life, and the lens which the world sees us through.
But when Israel acts with impunity and attacks Hospitals, UN schools and refugee camps, and the case for the Palestinians is vetoed by the US and UK at the international criminal Court then the world asks if our justice is really unbiased.
Amid rising attacks on Muslims in the UK, the former Faith Minister launches a thinly-veiled broadside against Sunak’s Government, and calls for a new civil rights movement in Britain
Josiah Mortimer
When we rightfully condemn extremist and genocidal statements by Hamas but fail to utter a single word about the genocidal rhetoric being spouted by Netanyahu and his right-wing government - then the world asks, are our scales of justice truly impartial?
When we follow the path of justice and the rule of law in the face of Putin’s aggression, but yet Israel continues to defy UN resolutions with empty words and no action . Then the world wonders where is the sword of justice?
When we fail to provide equal application of justice, then in the eyes of the world, it is “one rule for the allies of the US, and another for the rest.”
These are not my words, but the words uttered by the former Labour Foreign secretary, the late Robin Cook, in this very chamber - that sadly ring true 20 years on,
Our values push us to do better, and this is why despite all the risks to our personal positions, we must do what is right.
Whilst it may be a matter of convention to follow our closest ally, the US in interests of foreign policy, it is a matter of conscience to step away from our closest ally, in the interests of peace.
We know that eventually there will be a ceasefire in this current crisis. Every war ends with a cessation of hostilities. The question is not if there will be a ceasefire but when.
A Palestinian child is killed every 10 minutes. For the people of Palestine, every minute, every hour, every day we wait is another orphan, another grieving mother and another family wiped out.
This is why in standing to save innocent lives of both Palestinians and Israelis, and representing the people of Bradford West, in today’s motion I will be voting for an immediate ceasefire.
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
Why electing Jess Phillips – or anyone else – won’t save the Labour Party.
Photo: The Guardian
Leaving the Labour Party is not easy; nearly a year after the event, you still follow the debates, discuss things with your former comrades, still feel a certain emotional pull. The Labour Party is far too much like a family – admittedly one, to misquote Orwell, with the wrong members in control – for its own good; it means Labour Party people find it hard to be dispassionate.
I’ve been made acutely aware of this by the reaction of many of my former comrades to the news that Jess Phillips is to stand as Labour leader. To an outsider it seems a little like the Second Coming – or, perhaps a more appropriate analogy given what Labour has become under Corbyn, the hopeful diagnosis emerging from a long battle against an aggressive cancer. And I’m very aware of the moral pressure on we, the departed: will you rejoin to save the Party you loved? To vote for a return to real Labour politics and values?
The answer is, no: it isn’t that simple. My problem is certainly not with Jess Phillips, whose biggest advantage appears to be that she’s a fully paid-up member of the human race; I respect her directness, her emotional honesty, her hinterland (running a women’s refuge while her critics were discussing obscure points of doctrine over the quinoa), her obvious belief in creating a better world; and the fact that she has an admirable gift for getting up the noses of all the right people. Above all, she has the ability to connect. You may not especially like what she says; but at least she doesn’t patronise you by not saying it, or finding weasel words.
But the real questions amidst all of this are – what is needed to make Labour a serious progressive party once again? And what difference will electing a different kind of leader make?
It’s worth casting an eye back to 1983, that catastrophic general election defeat and the leadership election that followed it; and to the struggle that Neil Kinnock faced to defeat Militant, and to restore Labour to electability.
First, some statistics. Neil Kinnock was elected leader – and Roy Hattersley his deputy – on a “dream ticket” that attracted 71% of the total votes cast and more than 90% of the votes of Party members. It was about as unanimous a vote as you could ever expect; there was never any argument about Kinnock’s mandate. Moreover – and crucially – Kinnock’s background was firmly on the left; it gave him a moral authority in dealing with entrism by an organisation which – like the Momentum today – had aims and objectives that were fundamentally incompatible with Labour’s values and constitution.
And, crucially, Kinnock had the Labour organisation behind him. Kinnock’s candidacy had the backing of the unions; and he was supported by a Labour organisation that functioned and did what it was supposed to do to protect Labour’s values and structures against entrism.
But the problem today is that the entrists now are the structure. The Leader’s Office and the higher ranks of the Party’s orgnaisation are populated by people from outside the Labour Party – people in some cases whose entire political careers have been forged in opposition to Labour values and structures. The Unions, similarly, are unlikely to contemplate change – not least since their declining relevance in the real world is likely only to increase their determination to keep a grip on Labour’s structures.
In other words, whoever becomes the Leader of the Labour Party will inherit a structure whose aim and purpose will be to push back against any change. In 1983, Kinnock and his allies controlled the Party structures and kicking Militant out of the party was an epic bloody battle that nearly destroyed Labour. A new leader who wants to effect change will be faced by a party organisation, by unions, and by constituency parties which are all controlled by people who are ideologically committed to resisting that change.
And so my question for those who are rejoining in order to vote for Jess Phillips, or Keir Starmer, or anyone else who wants to challenge the Corbynite mindset that has just gifted the Tories their Brexit and a majority of 80, is: how far are you prepared to fight? How far are you prepared to become active in your CLP, to organise against the cultists of Momentum, or to take on the comfortably-salaried union apparatchiks who sustain, and are sustained by, Union leaderships who back and fund the cultists?
For what its worth, four years of Corbynism – of granstanding, of posturing, of Jew-baiting, of closed Brexitering – have convinced me that while the values that sustained Labour for a century have never been important, the Labour Party as an organisation is rotting from the core outwards, and no longer deserves the respect or loyalty of its erstwhile supporters: to say, as some will no doubt, that they were born in Labour and will die in Labour, and that they will never leave, is in my view a piece of sentimental self-indulgence, a determination to feel good about themselves while the people who have traditionally looked to Labour for support – the poor, the vulnerable – feel the full force of Johnson and his ideological Brexit. As Tawney wrote in his classic essay on the choices before Labour in 1931, to kick over an idol you must first get up off your knees.
I do not believe that a new leader of any persuasion can win the fight; ultimately, I do not believe the Labour Party as an organisation – as distinct from the values that animated it for most of its history – is worth saving. It is no longer fit for purpose as a vehicle for progressive, democratic, rational politics. To perpetuate it makes progress less, not more likely.
A very long-standing Labour member – more than thirty years – told me at the time of her resignation that it wasn’t the Labour Party any more. It had the name and the assets, but nothing of the values that inspired her to join as a teenager remained. I can fully agree with that view. And, however personally admirable Jess Phillips may be, my own judgement is that neither she – nor any of the other candidates – is in a position to change that. Progressives need to be ruthlessly realistic, not idealistic about where Labour stands now.
Forget £9k, it’s the £3k generation that matters (for now)
The £3,000 fee paying generation is just hitting the height of its repayments, well before the £9,000 hit theirs. David Morris argues that it's their political impact that is being felt most in the tuition fees debate.
The post Forget £9k, it’s the £3k generation that matters (for now) appeared first on Wonkhe.