uk politics
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
‘The Time for Human Rights is Now’
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Across the globe, people are commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). That first action of the United Nations after the Second World War was to confirm the equal dignity of each person and the commitment of governments to uphold universal human rights.
We are living through a time of wars and conflicts, of significant human tragedies across the world – a time when the message of upholding people’s most fundamental rights has never been more necessary both internationally and here at home.
However, in the UK, you’d be hard pushed to find that same political commitment, 75 years on. Have you read the UK Government’s statement celebrating Human Rights Day here at home? Seen the features on the news? Got diary invites for the local actions today? I suspect for many, Human Rights Day is not a major part of Sunday plans.
More likely, you’ll have heard about the Government’s new planned law to remove human rights protections from people seeking safety on our shores.
We should all be worried about any governmental 'divide and conquer’ approaches to the fundamental standards for humanity that are about us all, no matter who we are. Human rights are one of the rarities that really are about us all — the fundamental standards for humanity, no matter who we are. They are about what happens in our everyday lives. They are about our relationship with those who wield public power.
So perhaps it’s unsurprising that those very same powers that be, the Government, can find the legal protection of human rights inconvenient.
A new report reviewed the deaths of 3,648 people with a learning disability – almost half died an avoidable death
Saba Salman
As I often find myself saying, those who are bound by rules can be irritated when those rules stop them from doing something. But the UK appears to have moved far beyond irritation. What we’re seeing is a hostility towards legal accountability for human rights taking us down a dangerous path that could destroy the rules-based system the UDHR sought to secure in the aftermath of global conflict 75 years ago.
An overstatement? Let’s review the last year.
We entered 2023 with a Government Bill in Parliament seeking to scrap our Human Rights Act and replace it with what could only be seen as a Rights Removal Bill. It was UK Government policy to abandon its legal duties to respect and protect the universal human rights of people here. Instead, our rights would be subject to the whims of those with political power, to be earned or given to people deemed worthy. That is not human rights.
Thankfully, when Alex Chalk replaced Dominic Raab as Justice Secretary, the Government took time to think. Think on the evidence of its own independent review that concluded that there is no case for scrapping our Human Rights Act.
Think on the responses to the public consultation, which the Government’s own analysis shows did not support its plans. Think on the cross-party scrutiny in Parliament, including that the “Government should not progress the Bill in its current form through Parliament”. By the summer, the Government withdrew its unprincipled, unevidenced, unnecessary and unworkable bill, and with it the very real risk that we would lose our Human Rights Act in 2023.
The mobilisation of civil society, of people, across the UK, across political spectrums and interests, was vital in securing this change. Together we spoke up, countering the all too negative narrative of those seeking to reduce their accountability to each of us. We shared the very real stories of children in mental health crises, for whom human rights are a lifeline when faced with undignified care and treatment.
How human rights are a key part of the UK’s international peace agreement ending the conflict in Northern Ireland, which, far from being a piece of paper, has transformed people’s lives. How human rights are vital for members of the armed forces and their loved ones who have suffered neglect, abuse, harassment and bullying which has led to serious harm and loss of life. And much more besides.
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.
As 2023 comes to a close, there is still much to be done – so clearly spotlighted by this week’s latest attack on universal human rights here at home. On Thursday, the Government showed its hand: yes, the Human Rights Act stands, but the approach to law-making now seems to be to exclude certain groups of people from protection. This time it’s people fleeing persecution – who will it be tomorrow in this approach to human rights that guts the core principle of universality in favour of parochial exceptionalism?
This comes coupled with a refocus of political hostility to the European Convention on Human Rights. If the UDHR is our Human Rights Act’s grandparent, then the Convention is its parent. As with the Government’s approach to the Human Rights Act over the past 18 months, this turning of the crosshairs on the Convention relies upon, and often reinforces, confusion and obfuscation. Again, we are dealing with a sleight of hand, a distraction, a solution in search of a problem.
Civil society will again rally. We will tell the stories that need to be heard about why our human rights and the Government’s accountability matters, today just as it did 75 years ago.
This Human Rights Day, more than 75 of us, representing millions across the UK, have called on the Prime Minister and political leaders to do what we should be doing in 2023: using words and actions to protect everyone’s universal human rights at home. The time for human rights most certainly is now.
Sanchita Hosali is the CEO of the British Institute of Human Rights
In Plain Sight: The Picture the Palace Probe Missed
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
This article was first published in the November 2023 print edition of Byline Times
It’s the friendship Prince William’s former right-hand-man Simon Case concluded simply didn’t exist. And yet here are one-time royal press secretary Christian Jones and his publicist partner huddling together for an intimate celebratory photograph with ‘cash-for-leaks’ journalist Dan Wootton.
The occasion was Wootton’s 35th birthday party in March 2018. The location was the private terrace of a £1,675-a-night suite at London’s exclusive hotel The Ned. The guests were 20 “incredible friends” (in Wootton’s own words) – hand-picked to enjoy his extensive largesse. The issue is that it was a ‘friendship’ that – when legal documents later named Christian Jones – he flatly denied.
None of which could have seemed possible as Jones and his partner toasted the birthday boy – just a few days from winning a third British Press Award for ‘Showbiz Reporter of the Year’, and five years before he was unmasked as a serial catfish targeting young celebrities and colleagues for sexual images – with Veuve Clicquot among the potted peonies and Carrara marble tables on the 35m sq entertaining terrace of a hotel suite complete with a mahogany four-poster bed and roll-top bathtub.
One of the party’s attendees told Byline Times that “there was no expense spared” and “everyone invited was part of Dan’s special group of mates”.
“Dan hired a private dining room and laid on a set menu with three options for each course,” they said. “It was champagne and cocktails and whatever you wanted from the menu. Just 20 ate and then a few more turned up to celebrate with Dan upstairs on his terrace before heading on to a club in Shoreditch. It was lavish. There was no expense spared. Everyone invited was part of Dan’s special group of mates. Dan paid for everything.
This apparent closeness, as illustrated by the photo Wootton uploaded to Instagram and captioned with three red hearts on 11 March 2018, presented a problem, however, for Jones and his long-term publicist partner.
For, after Jones took the job of deputy communications secretary to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in December 2018, Wootton paid the publicist for stories which, according to a whistleblower account, led to a secretive internal investigation at The Sun newspaper, which feared being sucked into a leaks scandal just a few years after some of its journalists were prosecuted over payments to public officials.
Christian Jones (right) and Dan Wootton at The Ned ‘Just A Fluke’
The Sun has never confirmed anything on the record, but Byline Investigates – the sister website to this newspaper – revealed in June 2020 how lawyers for the Duke of Sussex, armed with credible but anonymously supplied information apparently originating from inside The Sun’s publisher News UK, were threatening to sue the tabloid over the publication of stories written by Wootton – and negatively spun against the Sussexes – headlined ‘Nanny McThree’ and ‘Tot Secret’.
They were published in June and July 2019 and centred on nannying and god-parenting arrangements for the Sussexes’ son Archie. Payments of £4,000 had been made to the publicist in August 2019 and were identified by way of an internal News UK accounting code. The matter had been referred to both Buckingham Palace and Britain’s then top anti-terrorism police officer, Scotland Yard’s Neil Basu, for investigation.
Basu’s job was to try to establish whether there was any case for a criminal prosecution for misconduct in public office – the crime for which nine police officers were convicted, based on evidence handed over by the Murdoch media empire to Scotland Yard’s 2016 Operation Elveden, for accepting money from journalists for information.
After the Metropolitan Police failed to obtain the full identity of the whistleblowing Sun insiders – which it required to obtain a warrant to search royal property – Simon Case, the then private secretary to Prince William, was tasked to investigate from within Kensington Palace, where Jones was employed.
Byline Times, through a number of sources close to the matter, has been able to establish some details of the investigation and the processes that ultimately cleared Christian Jones of wrongdoing. Both he and his partner insist the allegations that Wootton paid for private information about the Sussexes are incorrect.
But this newspaper can reveal that, although when formally questioned by Case – who is today the head of the British Civil Service and facing tough questions at the Covid Inquiry over the quality of decision-making during the pandemic – Jones admitted to knowing Wootton and dealing with him on a professional basis, he strongly denied that either he, or his partner, were close friends with the journalist.
“Quite a long and involved process resulted from Prince Harry’s lawyers sending a letter before action to The Sun,” one source said. “Of course, Christian had to be questioned by his bosses about it. He said that, yes, he had known Dan for a while, but that he did not know him very well, and that Prince William’s courtiers who appointed him didn’t have a problem with it.
“Christian also told them that his partner had indeed been paid by The Sun at the time stated in the whistleblower emails, and for the amounts described, but that the money related to stories about clients his partner represented in their work as a publicist, and was nothing to do with Prince Harry and Meghan.
“One of his partner’s clients supposedly had the same name as the Duchess of Sussex. There was the suggestion that this was the reason for some of the money paid and that the timing was just a fluke.
“On that basis, Christian faced no further action. He retained the confidence of Kensington Palace and later on had a couple of big promotions.”
Byline Times has learned that Jones’ position was that the allegations against him ought not to have been made at all on the basis of anonymous accusations, albeit they contained many correct details, including the internal News UK code, which warranted a legitimate case for further investigation.
Kensington Palace is understood to have sought to draw a line under the matter unless compelling new evidence emerged.
Alongside Wootton’s birthday Instagram photo, this newspaper has spoken to multiple other witnesses who say that Wootton tried to cultivate a friendship between the three.
EXCLUSIVE
The Truth About Megxit: How Dan Wootton and a Cash-For-Leaks Scandal Split the Royal Family
As Scotland Yard probes the journalist Dan Wootton over allegations of blackmail and serial sexual catfishing after a three-year special investigation by Byline Times, this newspaper can now reveal
how his payments to the partner
of a top royal aide forced the
Duke and Duchess of Sussex to run
from the UK
Dan Evans and Tom Latchem
‘It Wasn’t Like It Was A Secret’
“It is true that Dan knew [Jones’ partner] pretty well,” one source said. “At the time, they were quite a young publicist who had worked for a couple of the London agencies and were keen to get on in their career. Dan knew this and made a point of including [the publicist] in his group, beyond just seeing them at the usual premieres and television events where publicists and journalists tend to rub shoulders.
“For [the publicist], knowing Dan was undeniably useful professionally. Dan had a hell of a lot of power with the Murdoch press and [the publicist] sometimes had clients who either wanted to be in those papers or to be kept out of them.
“They enjoyed the benefits of knowing Dan. Sometimes they got to use The Sun’s box at the 02 for gigs. They were often around each other socially in the West End. You’d see them at the usual media haunts like Soho House and Shoreditch House.
“Sometimes Christian was there too. He got to know Dan through his partner. They used to go out together quite regularly for a while, sometimes in a small group, sometimes in larger ones, for food and drinks. It wasn’t like it was a secret. Lots of people in their social set saw them and knew about it and, justifiably, assumed they were pretty close.”
Wootton was at the zenith of his personal power at The Sun and on a senior rota to periodically assume overall editing duties when Jones took up his post at Kensington Palace around Christmas 2018.
Jones’ principal job was to handle media matters for the Cambridges – his actual employers – with a dual role to look after the Sussexes. But a few weeks into his new appointment, Jones himself became the story.
On 23 January, The Sun published photos of Jones out in London’s Notting Hill with the Duchess of Sussex under the headline: ‘“WHAT A HOTTIE” Meghan Markle’s hunky new press secretary sets pulses racing as female fans urge Harry to “be careful”’.
Alongside paparazzi pictures snatched after a low-key work lunch with Meghan, who at the time was pregnant with Archie, the paper wrote: “Royal fans have been left hot under the collar after Meghan Markle stepped out with her hunky new press secretary.”
The article went on to quote social media comments praising Jones’ physical appearance and cited his LinkedIn CV, crediting the Cardiff University graduate as being a former Brexit speechwriter and Treasury press officer.
“In his new role,” the piece added, “he will liaise with British and international media as well support the royals’ charitable work and engagements.”
A media management source said the article “raised eyebrows” at the palace at the time, considering Jones’ “main job was to be a trusted point-man to guide and protect his employers from invasive media” coverage. Yet, this was the “equivalent of clattering straight into the first hurdle”.
Byline Times understands that any social connection between Wootton, Jones, and his partner ended following the investigations into the payments.
The first source said that “the friendships pretty much died” after this because for Jones or his partner to be seen publicly with Wootton “would have been a very bad look”.
Despite the inauspicious start to working life at the royal household, Jones went on to enjoy a successful three years there during which he stepped into the shoes of Simon Case, when Boris Johnson brought him into his Government during the pandemic, to be the private secretary to the Cambridges.
He left Prince William and Kate in January 2021 to become a partner and head of corporate affairs for Bridgepoint, a £31.56 billion private asset investment fund in the City.
EXCLUSIVE
Revealed: The Emails Behind the Royal ‘Cash-For-Leaks’ Affair
Detailed but anonymous testimony from insiders at The Sun sat at the heart of cash-for-leaks allegations involving a royal official and the newspaper’s former top editor Dan Wootton. Now, Byline Times can publish the details for the first time
Dan Evans
Again, The Sun covered the career change, noting that Jones had enjoyed an “incredibly close relationship with Prince William”. The paper wrote: “Whereas Simon was credited with making the Duke a statesman – Christian has really helped them to steer them through their public-facing role during the pandemic. He’s helped them to grow in confidence by gently pushing them out of their comfort zone.”
Today, Jones’ partner continues to work as a publicist with some high-profile clients.
Wootton did not comment on the record at the time of the 2020 Byline Investigates story. But his lawyers at Mishcon de Reya, one of Britain’s most costly law firms, denied that any payments were made unlawfully to a public official or a proxy and claimed their client was the victim of a smear campaign by unknown bad actors.
Byline Times put a series of detailed questions to a lawyer for the Royal Family, a spokesperson for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Dan Wootton, Christian Jones, Jones’ partner, and Simon Case.
Dan Evans and Tom Latchem are former colleagues of Dan Wootton’s from the News of the World between 2007 and 2011. None of the sources or analysts cited either in this story or wider investigation were paid
‘These LGBT Freaks – Do We Have Them Castrated?’: Inside Europe’s Invite-Only Conversion Therapy Conference
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Just days after Rishi Sunak reportedly dropped plans to introduce a conversion therapy ban, Byline Times can reveal that a project of a charity registered in Northern Ireland held a conference in Poland where delegates heard about conversion therapy techniques, how fundamentalist Christian leaders met with British MPs and lords to convince them to fight against conversion therapy bans, and asked whether castration would get rid of “LGBT freaks”.
Organised by the International Foundation for Therapeutic and Counselling Choice (IFTCC) – a London-based company that says it is a “home for the once-gay” – the event welcomed Polish psychologists, American paediatricians, Malaysian religious leaders, Slovakian politicians, Norwegian pornography opponents, self-described British “ex-gays”, and German doctors.
Held in a hotel on the outskirts of Warsaw, the conference attracted more than 220 participants from 34 countries from 27 to 29 October, where 23 speakers conducted 37 sessions.
The IFTCC is a project of the Core Issues Trust, which is registered with the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland, and describes itself as providing support for "those leaving LGBT identities, behaviours, attractions and life choices”.
A cross-border investigation by Byline Times, German newspaper Die Tageszeitung, and independent Russian exiled investigative media outlet iStories Media, has discovered the public face of the IFTCC – which purports to “promote a caring, non-judgemental training environment” for people seeking support about sexuality issues – is markedly different from much of the pseudoscientific and harmful rhetoric discussed at the conference.
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.
'Supernatural Evil’
At first glance, the IFTCC event appeared to be like any typical conference. Delegates sipped filter coffee in between sessions and made small talk about the Polish weather. But listening to the presentations – such as one by an American university professor who explained how a selection of techniques and the power of the Holy Spirit could “break down the walls of the same-sex attraction house” – and it was clear that this conference was anything but normal.
During a Q&A conversation, in which an attendee asked what can be done about the “toxic LGBT ideology”, Dr Laura Haynes, USA Country representative for the IFTCC and licensed psychologist, explained how she had seen even “liberal parents” fighting against this supposed ideology. She said this was happening because, when their child comes home saying they are gay, these liberal parents are saying they are experiencing “supernatural evil”.
“Some have said this has led them to believe there might be supernatural good, there might be a god," she told the international audience. "Sometimes even the devil does God's will.”
For Fiona Wyatt – an active support of the Core Issues Trust who co-hosted the organisations’ 'The Pilgrim’s Way – The Journey’ discipleship series with her husband Simon Wyatt, a director of the Core Issues Trust – the conference was an ideal opportunity to share the challenges she faced for standing against the ‘LGBTQ agenda’.
Bethel Christian Assembly, the church led by Simon Wyatt, had its lease terminated, allegedly due to its anti-gay beliefs being discovered. When Fiona Wyatt heard about rainbow-coloured zebra crossings being painted in her local area, she sent an email to church members giving them a template of how to complain to the council. Once the caretaker found this email and shared its contents, the lease was terminated.
Fiona explained how she wanted to “get some research about what’s really happening, what’s really true. These LGBT freaks – do we have them castrated?” she laughed. “What do we do? We need to know.”
While many of the conference sessions were recorded and released to supporters online, violent language like this was not found in the publicly available videos.
A number of attendees said they deeply value the ability to be among friends and share their true thoughts and feelings about LGBT people without censorship at the three-day event.
A number of international human rights organisations state that conversion practices can be tantamount to torture. According to a statement on conversion therapy by the Independent Forensic Expert Group – an organisation established by the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims – these practices “may amount to torture depending on the circumstances, namely the severity of physical and mental pain and suffering inflicted”.
Both the Core Issues Trust and IFTCC say they do not endorse, practice or encourage conversion therapy.
EXCLUSIVE
WATCH: Nigel Farage Used ‘Homophobic Racial Slur’ in Personal Message Video
As ITV pays £1.5 million to platform the politician on ‘I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!’, a Byline Times investigation reveals how he charged £75 to use what appears to be a serious racial slur in a personalised video message
Dan Evans and Tom Latchem
'Once Gay – Not Anymore’
Members of X-Out-Loud, a group which describes themselves as ex-gay, provided practical support throughout the conference, doing everything from helping to staff the pop-up book shop to bringing late delegates into sessions.
Wearing black T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan “once gay – not anymore" in rainbow colours, these mainly younger people were showcased as living proof that it is possible to overcome homosexuality through 'healing from God'.
As a project of the Core Issues Trust, X-Out-Loud members "share their testimonies of leaving LGBT identities or lifestyles, following a personal encounter with Jesus”. During the latest Church of England Synod in November, several X-Out-Loud members gathered in front of The Church House, home of the headquarters of the Church of England, to protest against same-sex blessings.
From books such as X-Out-Loud: Emerging Ex-LGBT Voices – which features 44 testimonies from people in 22 countries who report having left LGBT identities – to a film called Once Gay – Matthew and Friends, in which X-Out-Loud member Matthew Grech discusses what he sees as the "must-stay-gay" culture; the project is active online and across social media.
According to a report published by US non-profit Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, X-Out-Loud “co-opts and warps the language of the LGBTQ+ rights movement for its own ends”.
All major counselling and psychotherapy bodies in the UK – including the NHS and British Psychological Society – view conversion therapy as a harmful practice and have signed a Memorandum of Understanding reflecting their “commitment to ending the practice of ‘conversion therapy’ in the UK”.
Global Ambitions
London may be the base for many organisations involved with the IFTCC conference, but prominent evangelical Christian organisations are working to spread their influence far from the capital city.
The not-for-profit advocacy group Christian Concern is led by chief executive Andrea Williams, who spoke at length during two sessions at the conference on a range of topics from how abortion in the UK is a "legalised holocaust" to the strategies of fighting against anti-discrimination changes across the world.
“One of my great heroines is Shirley Richards in Jamaica, who has been resisting the decriminalisation of buggery laws in her nation,” Williams said at the conference. “Because decriminalisation goes to the redefining of words and institutions. Anti-discrimination and equal rights mean that, unless you comply with this new agenda, you will be silenced – you will be criminalised.”
According to Companies House filings, Williams was a director of the Core Issues Trust from October 2015 until May 2019.
On 12 April this year, the Christian Concern account on X (formerly Twitter) posted that Williams had travelled to the British Virgin Islands, South Africa and South Korea to “bolster Christians seeking to stand firm in the face of a different kingdom – of LGBT ideology”.
The Christian Legal Centre, part of Christian Concern, is supporting Matthew Grech, an X-Out-Loud member and self-proclaimed ex-gay, as he faces charges of advertising conversion practices in Malta, a country where conversion therapy is outlawed.
FUND MORE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING
Help expose the big scandals of our era.
In the UK, Williams and Christian Concern have been active in the successful attempt to stop a conversion therapy ban bill to pass into law.
In an email to Christian Concern supporters, seen by Byline Times, Andrea Williams said one part of the “hard, multi-faceted work” the organisation carried out to stop the ban was meeting MPs and Lords face-to-face to help them understand that a ban would be harmful and not needed. “By God's grace, we have made remarkable progress in this campaign,” she wrote.
During one of her sessions at the conference, Williams said that while pro-gay activists say they want homosexuality to be decriminalised across the world, every nation is permitted to make its own criminal laws.
Boosted by the successful campaign to stop conversion therapy being banned in the UK, Williams is now setting out a strategy that, if successful, would roll-back decades of hard-won human rights legislation, including same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws.
“Together, we are building a global response by building a global training ground, we're building a global presence, we're going to have global funding – absolutely nothing is going to stop us,” Williams said.
Mike Davidson, IFTCC chairman, Core Issues Trust CEO and X-Out-Loud Europe co-director, told Byline Times: "The IFTCC's International Declaration on ‘Conversion Therapy’ and Therapeutic Choice reflects the IFTCC’s understanding on the research literature relating to sexual ‘orientation’ and gender incongruence. Our policy documents reflect the ethical statements and practice guidelines we encourage in those associating with us.”
Instead of answering any of this newspaper's questions, Davidson referred it to the IFTCC website.
Dr Laura Haynes, Fiona Wyatt and Andrea Williams did not respond to a request for comment.
This investigation was funded by Journalismfund.eu
‘Reckless to the Point of Madness’: How the Murdoch Empire Hacked British Politics
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
This week, News Group Newspapers – the publisher of The Sun and the now defunct News of the World – agreed a six-figure settlement with former Liberal Democrat minister Chris Huhne over a phone-hacking and intrusion claim. It also settled 11 other cases, including those of singer Melanie Chisholm, and actors Keith Allen and Catherine Tate.
Rupert Murdoch's company News Corp has now paid out a total of £1.2 billion in settlement of claims of unlawful privacy intrusion.
In the latest edition of Prospect magazine’s Media Confidential podcast, its Editor Alan Rusbridger – under whose editorship the Guardian newspaper exposed the phone-hacking scandal in 2011 – interviews former Guardian journalist Nick Davies, whose reporting revealed how claims of 'one rogue reporter’ masked the widespread use of hacking at the News of the World.
In this extract from the podcast, Davies explores the significance of the Huhne settlement.
'A Weapon' to Attack those 'Causing a Political Obstruction’
There were two big headlines. First, the Murdoch people carried on hacking voicemails for many years longer than we have previously understood, and did so in a way which was so reckless.
The second big headline is that, whereas all of the hacking we knew about already was about trying to get stories about people's personal lives, this, or at least a significant part of it, appears to have been devoted to advancing Rupert Murdoch's commercial interests, specifically his attempt to take over all of BSkyB.
The implication of that is that there were senior people organising it. It wouldn't be the familiar names from the News of the World newsroom. It would be somebody high up in the hierarchy. And somewhere up there, there's not only Rupert Murdoch but more immediately on the scene his son James.
I would describe it as a strong case of circumstantial evidence, which falls short of anything like a smoking gun. There isn't an email from A to B saying 'guess what, I just hacked Chris Huhne's email and discovered the following info'. So, as circumstantial cases go, it's strong, but I think it's not without doubt.
When we talk about the circumstantial evidence here, some of it is familiar stuff. People saying 'oh yeah, I remember my mobile phone would go, and when I picked it up, there was nobody there'. (If you're going to hack someone's voicemail, you have to get through when they're not answering the phone). 'I would show up for some meeting and there would be a photographer there. How the hell did they know I was going to be there? How on earth did they get this information?' So, there's that kind of foundation layer of circumstantial evidence.
The media company has now paid to settle a claim that alleges the involvement in, or at least the knowledge of, illegal activities by senior executives
Brian Cathcart
There are two other types of evidence extracted from the Murdoch company on the orders of the judge hearing the Huhne case.
First, records of payments to private investigators. And the second – which is the most important – is the records of phone calls made from Murdoch HQ in Wapping to the three senior Lib Dem MPs we're talking about here: Chris Huhne, Vince Cable and Norman Lamb.
What you see over a period of time is nearly 900 calls coming from the Wapping Murdoch building to these three MPs. The three MPs say 'but we weren't getting calls from The Sun or the News of the World', which are the people involved here. 'What are these calls for?' And some of them are suspiciously short. A reporter calls a politician, it's going to be a complicated conversation, at least 10 minutes, maybe longer. This is a minute or two, over and over again.
The private investigator invoices, and the calls from Wapping, happen in clusters. If we apply that circumstantial evidence to a timeline, you see a very interesting picture developing.
First of all, in late 2005, and early 2006, Charles Kennedy was the Leader of the Liberals. There's a problem with alcohol. He loses the leadership. There's an election with four candidates. And there is tremendous activity by the News of the World and The Sun hiring private investigators. We can see the payments going through, and the overwhelming majority of these short, nearly 900, mysterious calls are coming through the main switchboard cluster around the Charles Kennedy story and the election bid.
Two of the targets of that hacking, Simon Hughes and Mark Oaten, have separately settled, and it's been accepted that they were being hacked. Later that year, everything goes wrong when the police bust the News of the World's royal correspondent Clive Goodman in August 2006, seven months after the election hacking. Come the spring of 2009, as far as the official version of events is concerned, all of the phone-hacking has stopped.
Suddenly, the News of the World and The Sun pick up on Chris Huhne as a target. He's seeing somebody he's not married to. Suddenly, you've got this cluster of PI (private investigator) activity and mysterious, short phone calls from the Wapping hub number. That suggests to me that the Murdoch company really does think it's above the law and it can do what the hell it likes.
They carry on doing that with clusters after the Guardian starts publishing these stories that cause them such trouble. Within days of the Milly Dowler story in July 2011, the are clusters of PI activity and mysterious hub calls going into Vince Cable. There’s a phase in December 2011 when Lord Justice Leveson is sitting, hearing evidence based on the material that's come out. They're still hacking phones while that's going on. This is reckless to the point of madness.
There's a really interesting phase around Murdoch's attempt to take over BSkyB.
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.
We have the election in May 2010; the Coalition is now in Government. On 10 June, the Murdochs’ very smooth French lobbyist, Fred Michel, goes in to see Norman Lamb, a senior Lib Dem MP who is, at this point, parliamentary private secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. And guess what? There are six short hub calls to Lamb's phone on and around that day, 10 June, and six others to Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, who's going to decide whether to issue an 'intervention notice' and start investigating the competition implications of the BSkyB bid.
That cluster of phone calls at that moment looks very much like somebody on the commercial side not looking for blackmail stuff and kompromat, but just trying to find out which way the ball is bouncing so that Fred can do better than perhaps he might be able to at the meeting with Norman Lamb.
At the beginning of September 2009, The New York Times (thanks to Alan Rusbridger’s initiative) publish a big story on phone-hacking. CEO Rebekah Brooks writes to Fred Michel an email saying 'what can we do?' Michel writes back in terms, this is slightly chilling: "The key will be for prominent Lib Dems, like Clegg and Huhne, to stay silent on it, and I think they will.”
A few weeks later, Vince Cable says 'I'm issuing an intervention notice. We're going to investigate this bid'. Two things happen.
One, we get lots of hub calls coming in – there's lots and lots of apparent evidence of espionage on Cable, the Business Secretary handling this huge deal, and on Norman Lamb, Nick Clegg's right-hand.
Will Lewis, senior executive in the Murdoch company, persuaded his old pals at the Daily Telegraph to send two young freelance journalists to Vince Cable's constituency meeting, where they secretly recorded him saying, essentially, 'I'm going to stop Murdoch doing this'. That recording meant that Vince Cable lost his job. Vince Cable didn't go quiet, so he lost his job. All of this is surrounded by these hub calls and PI invoices.
Granted, there's an element of doubt. But I think we are entitled to say that the Murdoch company used the News of the World as a weapon to try to attack the people who were causing a political obstruction and to appear to have engaged in illegal criminal activity to gather evidence which would assist them in doing that.
When people criticise Rupert Murdoch, they often think it's all about him intervening in the editorial line of his papers. That's actually the secondary issue. The primary one is Murdoch undermines, and occasionally overthrows, democratically elected governments. And never before, in all the research that I was doing, have we been able to see it happening in such fine detail.
Listen to the full interview in Prospect magazine’s Media Confidential podcast
Boris Johnson’s Covid Inquiry Appearance Exposed the Complicity of his Accomplices
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
There’s a scene in the crime film The Usual Suspects in which the investigating agent suggests that you can always tell if a captured man is guilty by how well they sleep in their cell.
“Let's say you arrest three guys for the same killing”, Special Agent Kujan tells his colleagues.
“You put them all in jail overnight. The next morning, whoever's sleeping is your man.”
I recalled this observation while watching the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s two day interrogation by the Covid Inquiry.
When we last saw Johnson earlier this year he was fighting for his political life, lashing out at critics and threatening to take down the Conservative party with him.
Back then the man described by his predecessor David Cameron as a “greased piglet” appeared to not only have trotters, but fangs too.
Yet after losing that fight something appeared to change in the former PM's demeanour. Visibly older and paler, Johnson initially exhibited to the Inquiry little of the political fight he had previously shown.
Like a guilty man finally able to catch a decent night’s sleep after years of running from the law, Johnson seemed content for the Inquiry to do what they wanted with him.
Opening with a broad, but vague apology for undefined “mistakes” made by his Government, Johnson admitted that not everything had gone well during the pandemic.
Yet when he was pushed by the Inquiry’s lead interrogator Hugo Keith about what exactly those mistakes might be, Johnson immediately sought to deflect the blame onto others.
“Sometimes… the BBC News would have one message from Number 10, then a slightly different one from Scotland or wherever, and I think we need to sort that out in future” he said.
When Keith indicated his dissatisfaction at this obvious attempt to deflect responsibility away from himself, Johnson again prevaricated.
“Were there things that we should have done differently? Unquestionably. But, you know, I would struggle to itemise them all before you now”, he replied.
Such reluctance to identify his own mistakes continued throughout the two days.
When asked about his refusal to take Covid seriously in the opening months of the outbreak, Johnson repeatedly sought to blame it on his own advisers.
Despite his then Health Secretary chairing five separate emergency COBRA meetings about it, none of which he even bothered to attend, Johnson insisted that somehow “it wasn't really escalated to me as an issue of national concern”.
When evidence was put to him of his own Chief Adviser Domimic Cummings in early February warning him that the Government’s scientific advisers had found that the virus was “out of control” and would soon “sweep the world”, Johnson again sought to spread the blame, saying that “our” mistake was that “we” did not take these warnings seriously enough.
Later when asked to take responsibility for his failure to impose Covid restrictions until weeks after they were recommended to him, he again bounced it onto others, saying that “the Cabinet was, on the whole, more reluctant to impose [restrictions] than necessarily I was".
Damning evidence from the Covid Inquiry reveals how the former PM was enabled by a system determined to look the other way, reports Adam Bienkov
Indeed on almost every issue, from Partygate, to the “toxic” culture inside Number 10, and the Eat Out to Help scheme, Johnson point blank refused to take full blame for his own actions.
Such deflection was not always possible, however.
When cornered by Keith on the specific question of whether his own decisions had cost lives, Johnson appeared unsure of what to say, before eventually replying that "I can't give you the answer to that question… I don’t know”.
At times, these attempts to disassociate himself from his own actions took on an almost otherworldly quality. Shown a report, that he was first handed back in March 2020, suggesting that his then plans to deal with the virus would lead to the NHS being massively overwhelmed, Johnson slipped into an almost out-of-body state.
“I do remember looking at it and thinking there was something amiss,” he told Keith, while failing to explain why he had not actually done anything about this realisation.
When such attempts to plead ignorance didn’t work, Johnson instead resorted to outright denial.
At one point Johnson insisted that by the time of the first lockdown he was fully in "Virus Beating Mode". This insistence continued despite being shown evidence of him telling his colleagues that they were "killing the patient to tackle the tumour" and "destroying everything for people who will die anyway soon".
Later, when asked about the extensive evidence of his other comments to colleagues suggesting that Covid was “nature’s way of dealing with old people” and that they should let it “rip” through the population, Johnson again insisted this was the opposite of his views.
Refusing to let this pass, Keith immediately went to list every example of him saying the very words he had just denied, to Johnson's obvious discomfort.
Nor was the former PM's apparent dishonesty restricted to the past. At one point Keith asked Johnson about his written statement to the Inquiry claiming that the Government had “properly discussed” the Eat Out to Help scheme in advance with the Chief Scientific Officer Patrick Vallance and Chief Medical Adviser Chris Whitty.
Pushed on why he had made this statement, given both men denied any such discussion taking place, Johnson replied that this was merely an “assumption” he had made, adding that he struggled to see how such an important policy would have been “smuggled” past the two men.
His attempts to explain how thousands of WhatsApp messages stored on his phone had somehow been "automatically" deleted prior to the start of the Inquiry were similarly unconvincing.
The Media, Johnson and Covid: ‘An Orgy of Narcissism’ that Killed Thousands
As the Covid Inquiry has revealed, Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings are morbid symptoms of a sick system. At the heart of that sickness is the media
Peter Jukes
Getting Away With It
The Inquiry’s interrogation of Johnson, while at times subtle, was also brilliant in exposing his fundamental dishonesty and lack of seriousness.
Over the course of two long days, Keith and his fellow interrogators patiently set out the evidence of a Prime Minister who was deeply out of his depth and unsuited to the task of leading the nation.
Little genuinely new was revealed, due to the fact that most of the evidence had already been put to previous witnesses. Nor was this a Paxman-like interrogation in which the Inquiry sought to nail the former Prime Minister to the wall for his misdeeds.
Yet the cumulative impact of the Inquiry's questioning of Johnson was in some ways all the more damning for its calmness.
The former PM was quietly asked to take responsibility for a series of decisions which collectively resulted in the unnecessary deaths of many thousands of people. By the end, his refusal to take such responsibility, and his dishonest attempts to deflect it onto others, was so obvious that there remains little for the Inquiry to now do other than to simply set that out.
Don't miss a story
Yet while the Inquiry is already exposing Johnson for the deeply flawed individual he is, what it cannot do is fully expose how such a man was ever allowed to be in such a position of power in the first place.
Throughout his political career, supporters and commentators have attributed an almost supernatural ability onto Johnson for getting away with things.
Yet what this Inquiry has helped to demonstrate is that this supposed ability originated not in the man himself, but in their own indulgence of him.
While a "greased piglet" may be able to evade our grasp, somebody else has to be willing to apply the grease to him in the first place.
Such greasing was evident throughout this Inquiry. Throughout these sessions, evidence has repeatedly been shown of his colleague's private despair at his lack of seriousness, incompetence and dishonesty. Questioned by the Inquiry, some of these same witnesses queued up to list those same faults on the record.
Yet at no point has any of them explained why they continued to serve him despite those faults. Nor have any of his many previous media supporters bothered to explain why they were content to ignore these flaws for so long.
For decades this negligent enablement of Johnson allowed him to rise from the ranks of a disgraced junior reporter to the most powerful politician in the country, without almost anyone stopping to question whether such a rise was either justified, or wise.
For most of that time the consequences were limited. While embarrassing to those directly involved, his fabrication of quotes as a journalist, or dishonesty about his extramarital affairs while a Shadow Minister, had little impact on the wider world.
That all changed once he became Prime Minister and was charged with leading the country through Brexit and then Covid. Over the course of two major crises Johnson's deep flaws were fully exposed to the whole world with momentous and tragic consequences.
While the Covid Inquiry can put the evidence of those flaws firmly on the record, it cannot fully explain why those around him allowed him to get away with them for so long.
The search for that more shameful truth will have to take place elsewhere.
‘Populists Learn From Each Other’: Is the World Heading for a Tipping Point in 2024?
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Every year scientists warn that the planet is reaching a dangerous 'tipping point' – described by US Climate Envoy John Kerry recently as “the point at which events can simply unfold of their own momentum”. Surveying the world today, Kerry might as well have been talking about global politics.
At the start of 2023, I felt more optimistic. It was not that serious problems in the world did not exist – far from it, of course – but for the first time in years, the West appeared to have rediscovered its mojo.
Ukraine was sustaining a plucky response to Russia’s aggression, backed by a surprisingly robust US-led international support effort. This usefully served to send a warning signal to predatory regimes elsewhere not to push their territorial ambitions too far.
NATO appeared to have found renewed purpose, with Finland and Sweden both applying to join it.
EU countries were coordinating sanctions on Russia, generously hosting millions of Ukrainian refugees, and weaning themselves off dependence on Russian oil and gas.
The divisive policies of Donald Trump, and the worst of COVID, seemed to be behind us.
The UK appeared to be returning to some form of sanity, having replaced the obnoxious Boris Johnson, and the disastrous Liz Truss, with the seemingly more pragmatic Rishi Sunak. UK-EU relations looked set to improve with constructive cooperation on Ukraine, and conclusion of the Windsor Framework resolving various issues around the Northern Ireland Protocol.
There seemed to be new awareness across the transatlantic alliance of the need to stand up for democratic values, to better protect our political institutions and our economies from hostile foreign actors, and to develop a more coordinated approach on China.
‘Britain and the US: How the Oligarchies Posing as Democracies have Been Exposed’
Something even worse than government run by politicians is government run by politics, writes AC Grayling
AC Grayling
Even in the fractious Middle East, there appeared to be positive developments, with Israel improving relations with several Arab States, including Saudi Arabia.
At last, I thought, the West was emerging from its phase of uncertainty and hesitation, as reflected in its feeble response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, and invasion of Ukraine and seizure of Crimea in 2014, its failure to enforce the famous 'redline' in Syria, and the chaotic departure from Afghanistan. Ukraine seemed to suggest that there was still some 'juice' and staying power in the Western Alliance, which might usefully be applied to other global challenges.
I particularly hoped that President Joe Biden’s leadership on Ukraine would remind Americans of the value of international engagement, and the danger in allowing an authoritarian, isolationist, individual like Trump back into the Oval Office. And if that didn’t do the trick, I at least hoped that the mounting number of legal cases against Trump would scupper his second presidential campaign.
How naïve this seems now.
America's 'Last Election’ Approaching?
The war in Ukraine has become bogged down. Russia has dug in for the long haul. Bipartisan support for Ukraine in America is fraying. The West appears set to continue giving Ukraine just enough weapons to allow it to keep fighting (and dying), but not enough to win.
There is even growing talk in some quarters of encouraging Ukrainian President Zelensky to sue for peace, even at the cost of leaving Russia in control of some parts of Ukrainian territory, and sending a message to the wider world that, after all, aggression does pay.
This seems to have been swiftly internalised by the authoritarian regime in Azerbaijan, which in late September seized Nagorno-Karabakh from Armenia without suffering any serious consequences.
I don’t doubt that Hamas launched its deadly attacks on Israel on 7 October making a similar calculation, that despite, or perhaps because of Ukraine, the West would be too distracted to respond effectively. Indeed, the attack appears to have produced precisely the result that its sponsors in Iran and Russia probably wanted – a heavy-handed response by Israel which has divided international opinion and increased pressure on Western governments, especially the US, to justify its strong support for Israel.
It’s a sign of the diminishing clout of the US that its pleas for Israel to show restraint seem so far to have had only limited impact. Qatar and Egypt seem to have played the most impactful roles in hostage release negotiations so far. The savage Israeli attack on Gaza continues with no obvious end in sight.
As on Ukraine, the United Nations has been utterly unable to fulfil its mandate to uphold international peace and security, due to irreconcilable divisions between the five permanent members of the Security Council.
Meanwhile, Sweden’s NATO membership remains pending, blocked by Turkey and Hungary. Ambitious plans for further EU enlargement to take in Ukraine, Moldova and eight other applicant or aspirant countries by 2030, appear unrealistic, given concerns over whether the EU can agree on the political and economic changes required to incorporate so many new members, as well as outright opposition from some existing members, such as Hungary. The same hesitation is likely to afflict similar NATO enlargement decisions at its 75th anniversary summit in Washington next year.
Countries across the world are also struggling to manage the issue of mass migration, with incumbent governments facing a right-wing populist backlash if they fail to take strong action. The electoral success of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands is a foretaste of what might be to come in elections across the EU, including for the European Parliament. It’s no longer just Britain threatening to water-down refugee protections, and turn away migrants, even at the risk of contravening the previously sacrosanct principle of non-refoulement.
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.
At the time of writing, COP28 seems unlikely to produce any meaningful breakthroughs, sufficient to put the world closer on track to reach the Paris agreement goal of limiting global warming to below 2°C of pre-industrial levels.
Authoritarians everywhere seem emboldened. According to Freedom House, 80% of the world’s people live in countries or territories rated 'not free' or only 'partly free' in its annual Freedom in the World report.
There have been seven successful military coups in Africa alone since 2020. Conflicts continue to rage in other countries across the world, such as Syria, Yemen, Burma and Sudan.
It’s a very depressing global picture. But what strikes most chill into my heart is the unimaginably awful prospect that Donald Trump might actually succeed in becoming US President again, given the unpopularity of the aging Biden, and the lack of a viable alternative Republican candidate as it currently stands.
Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney recently warned Americans that Donald Trump would almost certainly refuse to leave office if he won a second term, and that a vote for him could therefore be “the last election that you ever get to vote in". The Republican added that “America would be sleepwalking into dictatorship”.
Laura Thornton, senior vice president for democracy at the US-based think tank, the German Marshall Fund, recently described to me that “democracy is part of a wider geopolitical eco-system. Populists learn from each other. Once democracy starts to erode in one country, it risks unravelling in other countries. Election denialism [claims that elections were fraudulent or stolen] is the new black”.
There’s a famous incident in the US Civil War when Abraham Lincoln is asked by a soldier if he still had faith in a Union victory. Lincoln, quoting his Secretary of State, William Seward, said that he believed “there’s always just enough virtue in this republic to save it; sometimes none to spare, but enough to meet the emergency”. Would he sound so confident today?
‘To Conclude Political Parties Do Not Fulfil a Public Function is Fantastical’
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Liz Truss was elected as Leader of the Conservative Party in September 2022. Unable to outlast a lettuce, she was soon succeeded by Rishi Sunak, the safe pair of hands needed to restore an economy that had taken a running jump off a high cliff.
On both occasions, the new Prime Minister was not chosen by an electorate of 60 million people, but an electorate of barely 200,000 – those people who had paid to become a member of the Conservative Party. When this electorate made its choice, it shifted the British constitution into gear.
Outside 10 Downing Street, a government Jaguar rolled into place, ready to chauffeur the latest PM-in-waiting up Whitehall and down the Mall to Buckingham Palace. Appearing before the monarch, they would be invited to form a government. This invitation may be formally at the behest and the discretion of the monarch, as one of their few remaining royal prerogatives. But the substance of the invitation is crafted by the Conservative Party membership (or the membership of whichever party holds a majority in the House of Commons).
But the default position of the UK's unwritten constitution is that the state has no interest in the Conservative Party and its membership. It is a private, unincorporated organisation, beholden to nothing and to no one but itself. It may have helped select 28 prime ministers, and every high ministerial office over the past 13 years may have been filled by someone from the Tory ranks, but the party is a private institution, not a public one. The rules that it makes, and the decisions which its membership comes to, are only a going concern for those inside the party.
Tortoise, the 'slow news' organisation, challenged this status quo in the High Court, arguing that political parties like the Conservatives are not purely private organisations, but semi-public ones. That their function is inextricably entwined with the British state and, when it steps out of its private sphere and onto public terrain, that it should be scrutinised in the same way as any other public body.
‘If Our Government Turns on its Own People, We Will Need the ECHR to Protect Us’
The European Court of Human Rights is there to safeguard us against our own worst impulses – calls to leave its jurisdiction are deeply troubling, writes Alexandra Hall Hall
Alexandra Hall Hall
Lang J in the High Court rejected this, writing that "it is not a public body and it does not exercise public functions... the election of the leader of the [Conservative Party] is not a function of a public law nature". Whether or not the leader becomes Prime Minister is "a prerogative power of the monarch, and the [Conservative Party] has no powers in this regard".
There is an Alice in Wonderland air to this reasoning, but it did not stop Fordham J. coming to the same conclusion.
In a decision handed down this week, he dismissed Tortoise's claim, writing that "the appointment of the Prime Minister has not been 'outsourced to a political party'". The Conservatives may have changed their leadership, but the question of whether their leader becomes prime minister is still in the hands of the monarch.
In part, Fordham decided this on the basis that the Conservative Party's role within the constitution is not one that could be fulfilled by a local authority or statutory body. Such a situation would be a "massive surprise" verging on an "impossibility".
Fordham may be right on this latter point, but the counter-hypothetical that it entails is tenuous.
Any lacuna left in the British constitution as a result of the extinction of political parties could not be filled in by a state body, but equally, the mass extinction of political parties would not give the monarch an unchecked right to nominate whoever he fancied as prime minister. The monarch would have to ask the people. From here, it follows that the members of the Conservative Party (or any other political party), so long as they are given the say on who should be the leader of their party, are exercising a public function. They are a proxy for the people.
Doubtless, Fordham considered this, and dismissed it on the basis that the UK does not have a presidential system, but a parliamentary one. Voters do not elect an individual, but a party. At the last election, they gave the Conservatives a majority and, with this majority, they can do whatever they want – up to and including appointing whoever they want as leader.
Such an argument is orthodox. But in its orthodoxy it is obsolete – unable to grapple with the contemporary reality of the British constitution.
Britain may still have the superficial structure of parliamentary elections, but these elections and the nature of the prime-ministerial office have transmogrified into de facto presidential elections. As I and others have noted, the British executive now holds the whip-hand over the state, with ultimate power wielded by No. 10, not by the Palace of Westminster.
The only mechanism really available to Conservative MPs concerned about the leadership is to hold a vote of no confidence. But this forgets how partisan British politics is today. When you consider this, and the character of most Conservative MPs, and the odds of them choosing a vote of no confidence and a general election over buckling down and accepting whoever the membership choose as leader are nil.
These, after all, are MPs who watched Boris Johnson desecrate every constitutional norm going en route to his slow-motion resignation (which was only because of internal party politics), only threw Liz Truss out after she tanked the housing market and the economy, and who are still lending support to Rishi Sunak as he tries to pass legislation denying reality in Rwanda.
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.
To suggest that the decisions of the members who have let this trio of incompetents occupy the highest office in the country should be immune from judicial scrutiny, on the basis that Parliament will hold whoever they choose to account, is equivalent to arguing that all the chocolate fireguard needs to work is sugarcane icing.
This does not mean that Fordham's substantive conclusion in this case was wrong, however.
Tortoise may have challenged the private status of the party, but this was only in a bid for information on the membership of the Conservative Party. Nothing in the information sought was likely to cast doubt on the party's processes or on the selection of Truss and Sunak. Tortoise's readers may have some interest in the process, but mere curiosity is not enough to set aside foundational constitutional principles.
But Fordham could have rejected the substance of the claim while still accepting that political parties play a vital role in the state, and that this role is a public one that, given the right circumstances, the courts have jurisdiction over.
Conservative members select the leader of their party and, history shows, a prime minister (at least more often than not). To conclude that they, and other political parties, do not fulfil a public function is fantastical.
The Government might be trying to sign treaties with Rwanda that force the country and the courts to ignore the evidence of their eyes and ears – but this doesn't mean the courts should get on board with this approach too.
UK’s Next General Election is Wide Open to Foreign Interference, Corruption Watchdog Warns
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
The integrity of the UK’s next election is at serious risk from rogue actors overseas, according to a corruption watchdog.
Spotlight on Corruption has written to the National Crime Agency (NCA) to urge it to take a leading role in coordinating enforcement of the UK’s electoral finance laws – arguing that Britain is currently “exposed to dirty money and foreign influence”.
This letter comes in the week that the Commons has waved through new regulations under the Elections Act 2022 that allow a huge expansion in overseas votes with few checks. The regulations will go to the Lords next week, where the Labour front bench has laid down a motion of regret that the regulations will “allow foreign money to enter our democracy.”
Up to 3.4 million UK citizens abroad will soon become eligible to vote and, as a result, donate – and spend potentially significant amounts on UK elections as non-party campaigners. The new voters will be able to use Brits living here to vouch for their identity and electoral administrators have few powers to enforce penalties abroad against fraudulent applications.
The Spotlight on Corruption letter also comes at a time when trust in the UK’s electoral system is at “an all-time low” the group argues. The Electoral Commission reports that 52% of people think foreign influence on UK election results is a problem, and only 30% think the authorities would take appropriate action.
Don't miss a story
As the letter highlights, there is currently no single law enforcement body with overall responsibility for criminal enforcement of the UK’s electoral finance laws, or of the new rules in the National Security Act to prevent foreign interference.
The Electoral Commission lost its powers under the Elections Act 2022 to bring criminal proceedings and has itself highlighted gaps in criminal enforcement.
There is now a “grave risk” that there is no effective criminal deterrence against rogue actors who may seek to undermine the UK’s electoral processes, SoC says.
The only police force with a specialist unit to tackle electoral law breaches is the Metropolitan Police. But its remit is limited to electoral fraud and malpractice within London, and – as a Freedom of Information request by SoC revealed – it has not carried out a single investigation into two key offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000 in the past 13 years.
The offences include facilitating the making of an unlawful donation, and failing to provide information to a party about a principal donor. The force has even recently asked to completely withdraw from enforcing election finance offences.
The NCA – with its broad national-level powers, specialist legal tools for tackling national security risks and money laundering, and its close working relationship with MI5 – has the ability to coordinate and lead criminal enforcement of the UK’s electoral laws.
However, “time and again it appears to have taken a back seat on enforcement of electoral law breaches, or ruled out further action when cases have been referred to it” Spotlight on Corruption warns.
In their letter, the group raises a serious questions about how the NCA is interpreting its mandate to protect the UK from national security and money laundering risks in election finance, what assessment it has made of the weaknesses in electoral finance laws that impede its ability to act, and what action it has taken on four specific recent cases which raised serious questions about alleged foreign interference or dirty money entering the UK’s electoral system.
EXCLUSIVE
The change means parties will now be allowed to spend over £30m in order to win a General Election
Josiah Mortimer
Dr Susan Hawley, Executive Director of Spotlight on Corruption said: “The government has talked tough on tackling the issue of foreign interference but, by expanding the overseas vote with so few checks, they are leaving the integrity of our next general election at serious risk.
“The government must urgently address the many glaring loopholes in our electoral rules and step up criminal enforcement of those rules, which is currently almost non-existent. Only the NCA has the national-level powers to coordinate an effective enforcement response to these risks. Ministers must give them the remit and resources to ensure that our democratic process is protected from hostile powers and dirty money.”
Spotlight on Corruption is a charity set up to “shine a light on the UK’s role in corruption at home and abroad” by scrutinising the UK’s anti-corruption laws and international anti-corruption commitments and how they are enforced.
Letter to the NCA in Full
Dear Mr Biggar [Graeme Biggar, Director General of the National Crime Agency],
Addressing the UK’s enforcement gap in relation to election finance
We are writing to establish how the National Crime Agency (‘NCA’) is exercising its functions and making use of its powers and resources in light of the significant threats posed by foreign interference and dirty money to UK elections and the real risks that our democratic processes could be compromised as a result.
As the UK approaches a general election, it is imperative for the public to understand if, and to what extent, the current weaknesses in criminal enforcement of electoral finance laws result from decisions about the application and prioritisation of existing enforcement powers, or, and to what extent, they result from gaps in the law...
Government policy and increased risks of election finance crime
The current Government has made it a priority to protect the integrity of the UK’s democracy – including by preventing foreign interference in our elections – following on from commitments made in the Conservative party’s 2019 Election Manifesto.
To meet these commitments, the Government introduced the Elections Act 2022, and has implemented the Electoral Integrity Programme to strengthen the integrity of the UK’s democracy. It has also introduced a series of measures that focus on tackling hostile state interference in the UK’s democracy, including the National Security Act 2023, the Defending Democracy Taskforce and the Integrated Review Refresh.
The Elections Act 2022 removed the 15-year limit on British citizens living overseas being allowed to vote in UK elections, extending the franchise to all British citizens who have lived in the UK. Newly eligible voters will be able to register from January 2024 once regulations have passed through Parliament.
EXCLUSIVE
There are fears lax rules could allow unfettered cash to flood in to UK politics from abroad
Josiah Mortimer
The Government estimates that, as a result of the change, between 3.2-3.4 million British nationals living overseas could become eligible to vote, (and therefore donate to candidates and political parties) and form unincorporated associations if they are composed of two or more overseas electors in order to spend potentially significant amounts of money on UK election campaigns.
Concerns have previously been raised by the Electoral Commission that these sorts of measures may increase levels of fraud. This is particularly due to the fact that overseas voters will be able to provide an attestation of their identity by another overseas voter, and it will be difficult for electoral authorities to enforce penalties against those who provide false identity information or false attestations.
The Elections Act 2022 also removed the Electoral Commission’s power to institute criminal proceedings although it retains responsibility for civil enforcement.15 The Government has recognised that it may be difficult for the Electoral Commission to enforce restrictions on foreign spending internationally “as it is outside of their jurisdiction.”
At a time of increased risk of electoral fraud overseas, and of donations originating from overseas, it is currently not clear which enforcement body in the UK now has overall responsibility for leading the UK’s strategic, national enforcement response to serious criminal offences under Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)and the foreign interference regime in the National Security Act 2023.
This means that there is a grave risk that there is no effective criminal deterrence against rogue actors who may seek to undermine the UK’s electoral processes.
The NCA’s role in relation to election finance offences
It is clear to us, from a review of the NCA’s statutory duties, powers and strategic and operational priorities that there is an overwhelming case that the NCA can and should be leading and coordinating the national response to these crimes, by scaling up its expertise and capacity, investigating and coordinating enforcement activities, making full use of its powers through enhanced collaboration with the Electoral Commission, Metropolitan Police Service (‘MPS’) and other agencies, and publicly committing to more robust enforcement.
The Crime and Courts Act 2013 confers significant functions on the NCA – including crime reduction, criminal intelligence and the functions conferred by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
In exercising the NCA’s functions, you must have regard to the priorities set by the Secretary of State, the NCA’s annual plan and the framework document. Current strategic priorities include: “intensify its work to tackle the threat from hostile states, corrupt elites, cyber and economic crime” and “play a full role in delivering the Government’s wider strategy to reduce crime and respond to national security threats.” Current operational priorities include: “strengthen our leadership role with partners and the public”, where success will be measured by a more cohesive, efficient and effective national operational response to threats.
Increasing the amount political parties can spend on general elections is another warning sign for British democracy
Lord Chris Rennard
From the strategic and operational priorities, it is clear that the NCA should play a lead role in coordinating the national enforcement response to serious crime in election finance, intensify its work tackling the threat from hostile states to the UK’s democracy and help to deliver the Government’s strategy to respond to national security threats in UK electoral processes. The agency is also uniquely well-placed to tackle money laundering in UK election finance.
The NCA also has considerable tools to deliver on these enforcement outcomes which are not available to other agencies. These include its oversight of the UK’s strategic response to high-end money laundering, powers under the Criminal Finances Act 2017, International Liaison Officers and broader cooperation with overseas law enforcement agencies, human and technical intelligence-gathering capabilities, intelligence-sharing through the International Crime Bureau and access to suspicious activity report data.
The NCA has particular powers, capabilities and networks to investigate foreign interference in the UK’s democracy. The agency’s close working relationship with the Security Service (MI5) is at the heart of “collective efforts to keep the country safe from all threats to national security”. This relationship includes sharing intelligence, assessments of current threats and collaboration on investigations to enhance your evidence-gathering capability.
It is essential that the NCA robustly addresses malign influence in electoral finance in order to properly discharge its functions and to have meaningful regard to its strategic and operational priorities. Trust in the administration of the UK’s elections is at stake with only only 30% of people thinking the authorities would take appropriate action if a political party is caught breaking the rules.
However, from our review of recent cases, we are very concerned that the NCA appears to have taken a backseat in enforcement. In the few cases that the NCA has commented on in recent years involving alleged donations from foreign sources and/or allegedly linked to money laundering or other criminality, it has expressly ruled out or has taken no further action on every occasion.
The current enforcement gap in election finance
The Electoral Commission works with the National Police Chiefs’ Council (‘NPCC’) and the City of London Police to provide support and training to a network of police specialists in election crimes, and the NPCC has a Lead for Financial Investigations and Elections. However, the Electoral Commission has identified that:
“…the overall system is not coherent and does not provide an effective deterrent. For offences which involve intent or recklessness, the only option is police investigation and then criminal prosecution. This means there is still an ‘enforcement gap’ for cases which are intentional but which are not, from a police perspective, in the public interest to take forward. Police forces’ pressured resources are understandably commonly prioritised to both more traditional police work and importantly serious victim-based crimes.”
The MPS Special Enquiry Team investigates allegations of electoral fraud and malpractice within London. However, the Team does not have the NCA’s broad national-level powers or suite of legal tools to tackle national security risks and money laundering in election finance, or significant alleged breaches of UK political finance law that originate from complex agency-based or corporate overseas-based movements of funds.
The MPS has carried out no investigations into possible offences under sections 54(7) or 61(1) of PPERA since 2010 and has recently proposed that it fully withdraw from enforcing election finance offences. The Electoral Commission has raised concerns about the lack of criminal enforcement, emphasising that, “Voters and campaigners should be able to know that non-compliance will be identified and dealt with proportionately and swiftly. The absence of any criminal prosecutions undermines the ability to deter or punish offences.”
The Electoral Commission shares information about potential criminal offences with other investigating or prosecuting authorities, but both the Electoral Commission and MPS have said that the current information-sharing powers are inadequate. The NCA’s broad information-sharing powers, and the functions conferred by the Crime and Courts Act 2013, underscore the need for it to step up to fill the UK’s current enforcement gap, and to take a lead in coordinating a national enforcement response to serious crime in election finance – including foreign interference and money laundering.
EXCLUSIVE
EXCLUSIVE: The Chancellor is lavishing cash at areas under significant threat from Labour
Josiah Mortimer
Election finance offences include serious crimes that cause significant harms
Political party funding from donors with links to corruption, money laundering or hostile states represents a fundamental threat to the UK’s democracy and national security. Dirty money leaves parties and MPs exposed to malign influence and the criminals and politically exposed persons who provide it, risks fostering dependence on criminal funds and undermines the integrity of our democratic processes. The risks are compounded by the limited statutory requirements on political parties to run checks on donations.
Independent bodies and MI5 have issued a series of warnings that hostile states have sought to influence our democratic processes by donating to political parties. For example, a report by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) in 2020 identified that members of the Russian elite linked to Vladimir Putin had donated to UK political parties.
In January 2022, MI5 warned that an alleged Chinese agent had sought to influence UK parliamentarians on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party, having donated to Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The ISC’s recent report on China said the country has sought to influence UK political thinking and decision-making, including through channelling donations to political parties.
Changes resulting from the Elections Act 2022 to the franchise for overseas voters meanwhile have created new risks of potentially suspect funds or funds linked to foreign influence operations entering UK electoral finance through donations made from abroad. These are risks that the NCA is more suited than any other enforcement body in the UK, with its wide international reach and proactive surveillance powers, to monitor and investigate.
EXCLUSIVE
UK authorities have alarmingly few powers to prevent bad actors from interfering with our democracy
Josiah Mortimer
Potential loopholes in our election finance laws
It may be that the NCA is unable to exercise any significant role in enforcing the UK’s current electoral finance laws because of the serious weaknesses in them. If that is the case, it is crucial for the public and policymakers to understand how enforcement in this area is being affected by the legal framework and what needs to change.
Some of these weaknesses may include that:
● The NCA has stated that it is lawful for a permissible donor to make a donation that comes from funds derived from someone overseas as long as it is the donor’s decision to donate.
● The Electoral Commission has identified that UK elections law “is silent on whether or not money obtained from crime would make a political contribution unlawful”.
● There are no requirements under the PPERA for parties and MPs to undertake due diligence on donations or to identify the true source of donated funds.
● A UK-registered company or limited liability partnership may donate money to a UK political party provided it “carries on business in the UK”, with no requirement for this to come from profits generated in the UK. The Electoral Commission has identified this as creating a risk of political parties accepting proceeds of crime.
● Unincorporated associations are not required to ensure that those who make donations to them are lawful donors, and only need to disclose whatever details they know of the name and address of a person who makes any political gift above £7,500.
Next steps
Given the seriousness of the issues raised in this letter and the critical need to restore public trust going into the general election, we would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt by return and provide a full response with reasons to the following questions within 28 days of the date of this letter, by 2 January 2024:
Has the NCA identified specific gaps in the current election finance laws that have impinged on its ability to undertake election finance investigations under PPERA?
[Read the questions in full here].
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these issues. We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours, Susan Hawley
Executive Director, Spotlight on Corruption
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
When Lost Humanity Breaks Down Healthcare
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
As you linger through the endless dull hours that make up most of life on a hospital ward, great significance is attached to the slightest things and also to those who are suddenly close.
Nurse P was always late with the drugs trolley, but her kindness and her fastidious approach opened up conversations during my stint in August. However, as my consciousness came back with the realisation of delays, so did my awareness that the ward was understaffed. If you are the nurse who administers drugs and there are too many patients on a particular day, then hold-ups are inevitable.
I found out Nurse P was from Nepal. This fact excited me, and was a reminder of how much the NHS has always relied on immigration to ensure its smooth running. But Nepal? Intriguing. I admit a hundred muddled cliches of Kathmandu – of beautiful people and Buddhist monks – consumed me. Nurse P was likewise genuinely fascinated when she found out I am a writer, including for Byline Times, which she looked up on her first break.
The usual experience for a disabled person in hospital is one where you grapple with the constant curse of pity. Every day: poor you, how long have you been like this? As I got better, my well-known teasing wit returned. What – sorry for me after wild times in a London punk band and writing a sex book, not to mention several fiancés and two husbands? I would counter. Sometimes this works. But after the brain bleeds, this approach often jumps to a peculiar rabbit-hole of more pity and one that feeds the tiresome ‘brave’ and ‘courageous’ disabled trope.
A new report reviewed the deaths of 3,648 people with a learning disability – almost half died an avoidable death
Saba Salman
Nurse P, however, was that wondrous rarity: she immediately read my column and spoke to me about it the day after, telling me she would buy my memoir First in the World Somewhere. I’m sad that the new challenges I face have crushed my energy, meaning that I’ve yet to return to the hospital and thank her with a signed copy.
Another reason the drugs trolley was often late is plainly down to the despicable, self-interested approach the Tories have to running – ruining – the NHS.
Abuse I witnessed from male nurses on night shifts is surely an echo of the culture in which they thrive. A shortage of decent staff, often poorly paid, creates a cascading effect. Older women on this ‘frailty ward’ were easy targets for a type of toxic masculinity I will always find shocking – particularly as a disabled woman – when a patient opposite me was abused. Highly vulnerable and with dementia, she was what the news likes to term a ‘bed-blocker’, and these men tormented her as a source of sickening entertainment.
I went through the night time hell in a hospital ward for just under four weeks. On those dark nights, I wrestled with thoughts of medical ghouls – Harold Shipman, Beverley Allitt and, more recently, Lucy Letby. Not forgetting the long, loathsome reign of Jimmy Savile who still at times despoils the innocent memories of my childhood.
I'm sharply aware of my own near miss now, hearing of the toxic culture of cover-up from the recent Newsnight exposure of Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton. That management is poor with the only concern hitting targets was one whistleblower’s take. Another report stated that “police investigations involved alleged mistakes in the treatment of more than 100 patients from 2015 and 2021, including at least 40 who died”.
Why a near miss of my own? The investigations are largely focused on Brighton’s neurology department, of which, in August, I was under its remote care. Some of my loved ones urged the ward doctors to send me for treatment at Brighton but ultimately decisions were made on brain scans and I stayed in Hastings. With hindsight, I’m very thankful.
However, a mistake was made upon my discharge. The accompanying letter stated I would hear from neurology for the follow-up and, after a three-month delay, this happened by accident when my next of kin contacted a support service which wrote to neurology on a completely different matter. I have no idea of any long-term effects of this, although, as is often the case – and it’s important to say it – my personal neurologist shows compassion and genuine interest in my recovery. He noted the error and I now have that in writing.
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.
Yet again, authorities are scrutinising another medical scandal. I’ve seen it all my life. But it sits alongside the compassionate salve of patience and humanity of those who’ve travelled far to work for the NHS.
As a child, I met nurses from Jamaica on the tail-end of the Windrush Generation. Young Irish women are still here and remain stalwarts for our health institution. This time there were people from South Africa, Zimbabwe and the Philippines, alongside lovely Nurse P, who had worked in the NHS for 21 years.
But I saw more of the NHS struggles by the petty failures that occurred to me after my four-week stay. No more caring staff, but fractured primary care services. It was as if the Tories had set up some vicious cost-effective ‘needs-o-meter’ where there’s a level one cannot go over. The day I left, everything began to collapse within these services that were supposedly there for my rehabilitation and recovery.
I am far from alone in this struggle and, as long as I breathe, I will fight. As despicable truths emerge from the Covid Inquiry, my resolve is never stronger. Particularly as, let us not forget, that six of every 10 Covid deaths were disabled people.
I hold Nurse P deep in my memories, to remind me of the best we have within a service that, as flawed as it is, we simply cannot lose.
Penny Pepper is an award-winning author, poet and disabled activist whose work focuses on identity, difference and what makes us human