A memo, from Mehdi to George: Dear Chancellor, your pants are on fire

Isn't it time for George Osborne to apologise for his mendacity during the AV campaign?

There were two depressing aspects to the electoral reform referendum in May. First, of course, there was the result: it was a crushing defeat for the Yes2AV campaign and all of us who support progressive, pluralist politics. Second, there was the US-style negative campaigning and gutter politics engaged in by the No to AV campaign and its parliamentary and media outriders. The No campaign was built on fear, hysteria and lies -- and it worked. The British public rejected a system that would have put more power in the hands of voters and reduced, in a stroke, the number of "safe seats" across the UK.

And here's the thing: the lies were brazen. The former home secretary and high-profile No to AV supporter David Blunkett admitted, on the eve of the vote, that anti-AV claims were "made up". No to AV, for example, pulled the figure "£250m" out of thin air and then argued that this would be the cost of introducing AV in the UK. One anti-AV poster -- proudly conceived by the Staggers guest blogger Dan Hodges -- claimed that the adoption of AV would automatically reduce the number of cardiac facilities available to premature babies. It was nasty stuff.

But to witness the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the most senior politicians in the land, getting down and dirty in the gutter on behalf of the anti-AV campaign was deeply disturbing. On 12 April, the Daily Mail reported Osborne as saying:

What really stinks is . . . one of the ways the Yes campaign is funded. The Electoral Reform Society, which is actually running some of the referendum ballots, and is being paid to do that by the taxpayer, stands to benefit if AV comes in . . . that organisation, the Electoral Reform Society -- part of it is a company [Electoral Reform Services Ltd] that makes money -- is funding the Yes campaign.

That stinks, frankly, and is exactly the sort of dodgy, behind-the-scenes shenanigans that people don't like about politics. The No campaign has asked for it to be investigated by the Electoral Commission and certainly I think there are some very, very serious questions that have to be answered.

But, on Wednesday, the Guardian's Roy Greenslade noted on his media blog that the Press Complaints Commission's latest list of resolved complaints includes two items on how Electoral Reform Services (ERSL) had complained about articles in both the Daily Mail and the Sun -- both of which carried the Chancellor's claims -- that they said contained inaccuracies. The Mail and the Sun, "to resolve the matter", agreed to publish a letter from the organisation in print and online (at the foot of the original articles).

The ERS letter pointed out:

Mr Osborne was wrong: the introduction of AV would not have required any additional voting machines and even if it had, ERSL would have gained no financial benefit because it doesn't manufacture or supply such machines.

Our services to local authorities are limited to the printing and mailing of ballot material and the provision of software for the management of electoral registers.

The Mail and the Sun have been forced to correct their misleading reports. The question is: isn't it time Mr Osborne is asked to apologise for or, at least, clarify his own dishonest claims?

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump's inauguration signals the start of a new and more unstable era

A century in which the world's hegemonic power was a rational actor is about to give way to a more terrifying reality. 

For close to a century, the United States of America has been the world’s paramount superpower, one motivated by, for good and for bad, a rational and predictable series of motivations around its interests and a commitment to a rules-based global order, albeit one caveated by an awareness of the limits of enforcing that against other world powers.

We are now entering a period in which the world’s paramount superpower is neither led by a rational or predictable actor, has no commitment to a rules-based order, and to an extent it has any guiding principle, they are those set forward in Donald Trump’s inaugural: “we will follow two simple rules: hire American and buy American”, “from this day forth, it’s going to be America first, only America first”.

That means that the jousting between Trump and China will only intensify now that he is in office.  The possibility not only of a trade war, but of a hot war, between the two should not be ruled out.

We also have another signal – if it were needed – that he intends to turn a blind eye to the actions of autocrats around the world.

What does that mean for Brexit? It confirms that those who greeted the news that an US-UK trade deal is a “priority” for the incoming administration, including Theresa May, who described Britain as “front of the queue” for a deal with Trump’s America, should prepare themselves for disappointment.

For Europe in general, it confirms what should already been apparent: the nations of Europe are going to have be much, much more self-reliant in terms of their own security. That increases Britain’s leverage as far as the Brexit talks are concerned, in that Britain’s outsized defence spending will allow it acquire goodwill and trade favours in exchange for its role protecting the European Union’s Eastern border.

That might allow May a better deal out of Brexit than she might have got under Hillary Clinton. But there’s a reason why Trump has increased Britain’s heft as far as security and defence are concerned: it’s because his presidency ushers in an era in which we are all much, much less secure. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.