Why I placed that Ban Blair-Baiting advertisement

The hate-speech directed at Tony Blair must be countered.

"Bliar is a war criminal and should be tried and executed -- let's bring back castration, disembowelling, hanging and quartering, since he is also a traitor."

This is a more extreme example of the sort of hate-speech being incessantly directed at our former prime minister, which prompted a group of concerned citizens to set up the online petition related to this week's New Statesman ad. Our other worry was that the media would be cherry-picking, distorting and exaggerating anything said at the Chilcot inquiry that appeared to undermine the case for war in Iraq, and therefore Tony Blair's reputation.

And so it has proved to be. Here's a graphic case in point from the BBC's supposedly impartial coverage of Blair's inquiry appearance. In the morning coffee break, the commentator, against a backdrop of hostile anti-Blair banners and placards, blithely referred to previous testimony "that a deal [about regime change] had been signed in blood".

In fact, the witness in question, Sir Christopher Meyer, had merely explained that he wasn't in on the meeting in question, so he couldn't say whether a deal was "signed in blood". Last week's Observer twisted Meyer's words in the same way. I could have provided many instances of such biased reporting had there been more space for this post.

I have looked in vain for mainstream media comment setting the record straight on this vital matter. That is why I felt compelled to take out that advert, as the only way of getting the message across.

Surely there is something badly wrong with our principal channels of communication if the reporting of such an important topic can be so slanted in one direction that those with another perspective have to resort to paid advertising to make their views known.

It has to be put right soon if we are to have a functioning democracy in this country.

Signing the petition would be a first step.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.